Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 1079–1088 | Cite as

The Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH): the use of a checklist to evaluate hip fracture healing improves agreement between radiologists and orthopedic surgeons

  • Mary M. ChiavarasEmail author
  • Simrit Bains
  • Hema Choudur
  • Naveen Parasu
  • Jon Jacobson
  • Olufemi Ayeni
  • Brad Petrisor
  • Rajesh Chakravertty
  • Sheila Sprague
  • Mohit Bhandari
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

The assessment of fracture healing following intertrochanteric fracture fixation is highly variable with no validated standards. Agreement with respect to fracture healing following surgery is important for optimal patient management. The purpose of this study was to (1) assess reliability of intertrochanteric fracture healing assessment and (2) determine if a novel radiographic scoring system for hip fractures improves agreement between radiologists and orthopedic surgeons.

Materials and methods

A panel of three radiologists and three orthopedic surgeons assessed fracture healing in 150 cases of intertrochanteric fractures at two separate time points to determine inter-rater and intra-rater agreement. Reviewers, blinded to the time after injury, first subjectively assessed overall healing using frontal and lateral radiographs for each patient at a single time point. Reviewers then scored each fracture using a Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) form to determine whether this improves agreement regarding hip fracture healing.

Results

Inter-rater agreement for the overall subjective impression of fracture healing between reviewer groups was only fair (intraclass coefficient [ICC] = 0.34, 95 % CI: 0.11–0.52. Use of the RUSH score improved overall agreement between groups to substantial (ICC = 0.66, 95 % CI: 0.53–0.75). Across reviewers, healing of the medial cortex and overall RUSH score itself demonstrated high correlations with overall perceptions of healing (r = 0.53 and r = 0.72, respectively).

Conclusions

The RUSH score improves agreement of fracture healing assessment between orthopedic surgeons and radiologists, offers a systematic approach to evaluating intertrochanteric hip fracture radiographs, and may ultimately provide prognostic information that could predict healing outcomes in patients with femoral neck fractures.

Keywords

Hip fractures Intertrochanteric fractures Fracture healing Reliability Radiographs 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Financial support

Funding for this research was provided a research grant from AMGEN Inc. and Dr. Bhandari was funded, in part, by a Canada Research Chair.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(11):897–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Randell AG, Nguyen TV, Bhalerao N, Silverman SL, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA. Deterioration in quality of life following hip fracture: a prospective study. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:460–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuckerman JD. Current concepts: hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(23):1519–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta 3rd P, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. A lack of consensus in the assessment of fracture healing among orthopaedic surgeons. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16:562–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vannabouathong C, Sprague S, Bhandari M. Guidelines for fracture healing assessments in clinical trials. Part I: definitions and endpoint committees. Injury. 2011;42:314–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corrales LA, Morshed S, Bhandari M, Miclau T. Variability in the assessment of fracture-healing in orthopaedic trauma studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1862–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whelan DB, Bhandari M, McKee MD, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in the assessment of the healing of tibial fractures after intramedullary fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-B:15–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansson T, Jacobsson S, Ivarsson I, Knutsson A, Wahlstrom O. Internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study of 100 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(6):597–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elmerson S, Sjostedt A, Zetterberg C. Fixation of femoral neck fracture: a randomized 2-year follow-up study of hook pins and sliding screw plate in 222 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66(6):507–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dijkman BG, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M. When is a fracture healed? Radiographic and clinical criteria revisited. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:S76–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manninger J, Bosch U, Cserhati P, Fekete K, Kazar G, editors. Internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. Chapter 1: Proximal femur fractures. Definition, epidemiology, anatomy, biomechanics. Vienna: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahn J, Bernstein J. In brief: fractures in brief: intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1450–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parker MJ, Handoll HHG. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Libr. 2010 [Epub].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Audige L, Bhandari M, Kellam J. How reliable are reliability studies of fracture classifications? A systematic review of their methodologies. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75(2):184–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gehrchen PM, Nielsen JO, Olesen B, Andresen BK. Seinsheimer’s classification of subtrochanteric fractures: poor reproducibility of 4 observers’ evaluation of 50 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997;68(6):524–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gehrchen PM, Nielsen JO, Olesen B. Poor reproducibility of Evans’ classification of the trochanteric fracture: assessment of 4 observers in 52 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1993;64(1):71–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andersen E, Jorgensen LG, Hededam LT. Evans’ classification of trochanteric fractures: an assessment of the interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Injury. 1990;21:377–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA, Lutchman L, Chirodian N. Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a study of the reliability of current systems. Injury. 2002;33(8):713–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jin W-J, Dai L-Y, Cui Y-M, Zhou Q, Jiang L-S, Lu H. Reliability of classification systems for intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur in experienced orthopaedic surgeons. Injury. 2005;36(7):858–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Memisoglu S, Eskin D, Yamak E, Gurbuz A, Saridogan K, Dulger H. Which classification system is more useful for intertrochanteric fractures? AO/ASIF or Jensen? Trakya Univ Tip Fak Derg. 2008;25(3):181–5.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fung W, Jonsson A, Buhren V, Bhandari M. Classifying intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur: does experience matter? Med Princ Pract. 2007;16:198–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Embden D, Rhemrev SJ, Meylaerts SAG, Roukema GR. The comparison of two classifications for trochanteric femur fractures: the AO/ASIF classification and the Jensen classification. Injury. 2010;41:377–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T, Koval K, Cuomo F, Schoenberg N. The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures. An assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1745–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hammer RRR, Hammerby S, Lindholm B. Accuracy of radiologic assessment of tibial shaft fracture union in humans. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;199:233–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McClelland D, Thomas PBM, Bancroft G, Moorcroft CI. Fracture healing assessment comparing stiffness measurements using radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;457:214–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin J, Marsh JL, Nepola JV, Dirschl DR, Hurwitz S, DeCoster TA. Radiographic fracture assessments: which ones can we reliably make? Orthop Trauma. 2000;14(6):379–85.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wade R, Richardson J. Outcomes in fracture healing: a review. Injury. 2001;32(2):109–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morshed S, Corrales L, Genant H, Miclau T. Outcome assessment in clinical trials of fracture-healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:62–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blokhuis TJ, de Bruine JHD, Bramer JAM, den Boer FC, Bakker FC, Patka P, et al. The reliability of plain radiography in experimental fracture healing. Skeletal Radiol. 2001;30:151–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kooistra BW, Sprague S, Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH. Outcomes assessment in fracture healing trials: a primer. Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:S71–5.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Crewson PE. Fundamentals of clinical research for radiologists: reader agreement studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1391–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary M. Chiavaras
    • 1
    • 6
    Email author
  • Simrit Bains
    • 2
  • Hema Choudur
    • 1
  • Naveen Parasu
    • 1
  • Jon Jacobson
    • 3
  • Olufemi Ayeni
    • 4
  • Brad Petrisor
    • 4
  • Rajesh Chakravertty
    • 5
  • Sheila Sprague
    • 4
  • Mohit Bhandari
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.University of Western Ontario Medical SchoolLondonCanada
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  5. 5.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Department of Diagnostic ImagingHamilton General HospitalHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations