International Orthopaedics

, Volume 41, Issue 9, pp 1881–1886 | Cite as

Reliability of a four-column classification for tibial plateau fractures

  • Alfredo Martínez-Rondanelli
  • Sara Sofía Escobar-González
  • Alejandro Henao-Alzate
  • Juan Pablo Martínez-Cano
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

A four-column classification system offers a different way of evaluating tibial plateau fractures. The aim of this study is to compare the intra-observer and inter-observer reliability between four-column and classic classifications.

Methods

This is a reliability study, which included patients presenting with tibial plateau fractures between January 2013 and September 2015 in a level-1 trauma centre. Four orthopaedic surgeons blindly classified each fracture according to four different classifications: AO, Schatzker, Duparc and four-column. Kappa, intra-observer and inter-observer concordance were calculated for the reliability analysis.

Results

Forty-nine patients were included. The mean age was 39 ± 14.2 years, with no gender predominance (men: 51%; women: 49%), and 67% of the fractures included at least one of the posterior columns. The intra-observer and inter-observer concordance were calculated for each classification: four-column (84%/79%), Schatzker (60%/71%), AO (50%/59%) and Duparc (48%/58%), with a statistically significant difference among them (p = 0.001/p = 0.003). Kappa coefficient for intr-aobserver and inter-observer evaluations: Schatzker 0.48/0.39, four-column 0.61/0.34, Duparc 0.37/0.23, and AO 0.34/0.11.

Conclusions

The proposed four-column classification showed the highest intra and inter-observer agreement. When taking into account the agreement that occurs by chance, Schatzker classification showed the highest inter-observer kappa, but again the four-column had the highest intra-observer kappa value. The proposed classification is a more inclusive classification for the posteromedial and posterolateral fractures. We suggest, therefore, that it be used in addition to one of the classic classifications in order to better understand the fracture pattern, as it allows more attention to be paid to the posterior columns, it improves the surgical planning and allows the surgical approach to be chosen more accurately.

Keywords

Tibial fractures/classification Intraobserver variability Interobserver variability Tibial plateau fracture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Helen Reina for the copy editing of this manuscript, as well as Juan Esteban Restrepo, for his help with statistical calculations and analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no funding.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

The institutional review board approved this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Gerard-Marchant P (1939) Fractures des plateaux tibiaux. Rev Chir Orthop 26:499–546Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duparc J, Ficat P (1960) Fractures Articulares de LExtremite Supérieure du Tibia. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 46:398–486Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huten D, Duparc J, Cavagna R (1990) Fractures récentes des plateaux tibiaux de l’adulte. Éditions Techniques, Enc Med Chir, Appareil locomoteur, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gicquel T, Najihi N, Vendeuvre T, Teyssedou S, Gayet LE, Huten D (2013) Tibial plateau fractures: reproducibility of three classifications (Schatzker, AO, Duparc) and a revised Duparc classification. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(7):805–816. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.06.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schatzker J, McBrown R, Bruce D (1979) The tibial plateau fracture: the Toronto experience 1968-1975. Clin Orthop Relat Res 138:94–104Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P (1987) Classification AO des fractures. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luo CF, Sun H, Zhang B, Zeng BF (2010) Three column fixations for complex tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma 24(11):683–692. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181d436f3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Molenaars RJ, Mellema JJ, Doornberg JN, Kloen P (2015) Tibial plateau fracture characteristics: computed tomography mapping lateral, medial, and bicondylar fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(18):1512–1520. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00866 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Postel M, Mazas F, de la Caffinière JY (1974) Posterior fracture-separation of the tibial plateaux. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 60(2 Suppl):317–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martínez A, Cayón M (1999) Fracturas del platillo tibial postero medial. Rev Colomb Ortop Traumatol 13(1):37–41Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doornberg JN, Rademakers MV, van den Bekerom MP, Kerkhoffs GM, Ahn J, Steller EP, Kloen P (2011) Two-dimensional and three-dimensional computed tomography for the classification and characterisation of tibial plateau fractures. Injury 42(12):1416–1425. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.03.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang G, Zhai Q, Zhu Y, Sun H, Putnis S, Luo C (2013) The incidence of posterior tibial plateau fracture: an investigation of 525 fractures by using a CT-based classification system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(7):929–934. doi: 10.1007/s00402-013-1735-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang SM, Hu SJ, Zhang YQ, Yao MW, Ma Z, Wang X, Dargel J, Eysel P (2014) A surgical protocol for bicondylar four-quadrant tibial plateau fractures. Int Orthop 38(12):2559–2564. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2487-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sohn HS, Yoon YC, Cho JW, Cho WT, Oh CW, Oh JK (2015) Incidence and fracture morphology of posterolateral fragments in lateral and bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma 29(2):91–97. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000170 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu YL, Ye FG, Ji AY, Qiao GX, Liu HF (2009) Three-dimensional computed tomography imaging increases the reliability of classification systems for tibial plateau fractures. Injury 40(12):1282–1285. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2009.02.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lowe JA, Tejwani N, Yoo B, Wolinsky P (2011) Surgical techniques for complex proximal tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(16):1548–1559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson EE, Timon S, Osuji C (2013) Surgical technique: Tscherne-Johnson extensile approach for tibial plateau fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(9):2760–2767. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2962-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zeltser DW, Leopold SS (2013) Classifications in brief: Schatzker classification of tibial plateau fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(2):371–374. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2451-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Altman DG (1992) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tscherne H, Oestern HJ (1982) A new classification of soft-tissue damage in open and closed fractures. Unfallheilkunde 85(3):111–115PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic Surgery Department, Fundación Valle del LiliUniversidad IcesiCaliColombia
  2. 2.Fundación Valle del LiliCaliColombia
  3. 3.Fundación Valle del LiliCaliColombia

Personalised recommendations