Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures

  • Toby JennisonEmail author
  • Abdulla Jawed
  • Ahmed ElBakoury
  • Hazem Hosny
  • Rathan Yarlagadda
Original Article • HIP & KNEE - FRACTURES



An interprosthetic fracture occurs between a hip and knee arthroplasty. There is currently no universally agreed classification. The aim of this study was to determine the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the most commonly used interprosthetic fracture classifications.


Nineteen interprosthetic fractures were classified by four reviewers for inter- and intraobserver reliability. The most commonly used interprosthetic fracture classifications were the Soenen classification, Platzer classification, and Pires classification. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was calculated.


A moderate interobserver reliability was found for all the classification systems. The Platzer classification had a kappa value of 0.586, the Pires classification 0.499, and Soenen classification 0.489. The intraobserver error was 0.767 for the Platzer classification (substantial agreement), 0.636 for the Pires classification (substantial agreement), and 0.318 for the Soenen classification (fair agreement).


This study has demonstrated moderate interobserver reliability and substantial intraobserver reliability for both the Platzer and Pires classifications. This paper would recommend the use of either classification for interprosthetic fractures.


Interprosthetic fracture Platzer classification Pires classification Interobserver error Intraobserver error 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.


  1. 1.
    The NJR Editorial Board. 14th Annual report 2017 National Joint Registry for England, Wales Northern Ireland and Isle of Man
  2. 2.
    Sidler-Maier CC, Waddell JP (2015) Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review. Int Orthop 39(9):1673–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drew JM, Grif WL, Odum SM, Van Doren B, Weston BT, Stryker LS (2016) Survivorship after periprosthetic femur fracture: factors affecting outcome. J Arthroplasty 31:1283–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdel MP, Cottino U, Mabry TM (2015) Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 39(10):2005–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Solarino G, Vicenti G, Moretti L, Abate A, Spinarelli A, Moretti B (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures—a challenge of treatment. A Syst Rev Lit Inj 45(2):362–368Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scolaro JA, Schwarzkopf R (2017) Management of interprosthetic femur fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25(4):e63–e69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soenen M, Migaud H, Bonnomet F, Girard J, Mathevon H, Ehlinger M (2011) Interprosthetic femoral fractures: analysis of 14 cases. Proposal for an additional grade in the Vancouver and SoFCOT classifications. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(7):693–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fink B, Fuerst M, Singer J (2005) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur associated with hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(7):433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pires RE, de Toledo Lourenço PR, Labronici PJ, da Rocha LR, Balbachevsky D, Cavalcante FR, de Andrade MA (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures: proposed new classification system and treatment algorithm. Injury 45(Suppl 5):S2–S6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Platzer P, Schuster R, Luxl M, Widhalm HK, Eipeldauer S, Krusche-Mandl I, Ostermann R, Blutsch B, Vécsei V (2011) Management and outcome of interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 42(11):1219–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pires RES, Silveira MPS, Resende ARDS, Junior EOS, Campos TVO, Santos LEN, Balbachevsky D, Andrade MAP (2017) Validation of a new classification system for interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 48(7):388–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I (2003) A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty 18(5):638–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toby Jennison
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abdulla Jawed
    • 1
  • Ahmed ElBakoury
    • 1
  • Hazem Hosny
    • 1
  • Rathan Yarlagadda
    • 1
  1. 1.Plymouth Hospitals NHS TrustPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations