Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Higher reliability and validity of Baba classification with computerised tomography imaging and implant information for periprosthetic femoral fractures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Baba classification for periprosthetic femoral fracture focuses on the positional relationship between the implant design and fracture site. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the addition of CT images and implant information to plain radiograms increases the reliability of Baba classification to a level higher than that of Vancouver classification.

Methods

Twenty patients were randomly selected from 61 patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture between 2009 and 2014. After Vancouver and Baba classifications were fully explained to six orthopedic surgeons (three experts and three non-experts), plain radiograms, CT imaging and implant information at the time of injury were presented, and the inter- and intra-observer reliability based on the Vancouver and Baba classifications and accuracy rates of stem stability were investigated.

Results

When interobserver reliability was made based on only radiograms, the mean κ value of Baba classification-based judgments made by the experts was 0.76, and those of Vancouver classification-based judgments made by the experts was 0.41. When interobserver reliability was made based on the radiograms and CT images and implant information, the mean κ value of Baba classification-based judgments made by the experts was 0.94, and those of Vancouver classification-based judgments were 0.48. Intra-observer reliability of Baba classification was 0.81 in the experts. Validity analysis showed 95.0 % agreement within all subgroups.

Conclusions

Reliability and validity of Baba classification was improved when additional information was given. We believe that this new classification is useful to establish a therapeutic strategy for femoral fractures around the stem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regnér H, Herberts P, Malchau H (2006) Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1215–1222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Neumann D, Thaler C, Dorn U (2012) Management of Vancouver B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures using a modular cementless stem without allografting. Int Orthop 36:1045–1050

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Corten K, Vanrykel F, Bellemans J, Frederix PR, Simon JP, Broos PL (2009) An algorithm for the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a well-fixed femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91:1424–1430

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Moloney GB, Westrick ER, Siska PA, Tarkin IS (2014) Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures around a well-fixed hip arthroplasty implant: span the whole bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:9–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baba T, Kaneko K, Shitoto K, Futamura K, Maruyama Y (2013) Comparison of therapeutic outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fracture between treatments employing locking and conventional plates. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:437–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Laurer HL, Wutzler S, Possner S, Geiger EV, El Saman A, Marzi I, Frank J (2011) Outcome after operative treatment of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:983–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baba T, Homma Y, Momomura R, Kobayashi H, Matsumoto M, Futamura K, Mogami A, Kanda A, Morohashi I, Kaneko K (2015) New classification focusing on implant designs useful for setting therapeutic strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop 39(1):1–5. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2476-x

  9. Landis JR, Koch GC (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harris WH, McGann WA (1986) Loosening of the femoral component after use of the medullary plug cement technique. Follow-up note with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:1064–1066

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goto E, Teranishi T, Tsuji M, Ando M (2014) Long-term clinical results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty using a matte satin-finished stem: a 30-year average follow-up study. J Orthop Sci 19(6):959–964. doi:10.1007/s00776-014-0619-y

  12. Loudon JR, Older MW (1989) Subsidence of the femoral component related to long-term outcome of hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 71:624–628

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmitz MW, Busch VJ, Gardeniers JW, Hendriks JC, Veth RP, Schreurs BW (2013) Long-term results of cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years and the outcome of subsequent revisions. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:37. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-37

  14. Shah RP, Sheth NP, Gray C, Alosh H, Garino JP (2014) Periprosthetic fractures around loose femoral components. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22:482–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Masri BA, Meek D, Duncan CP (2004) Periprostheic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop 42:80–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wood GC, Naudie DR, McAuley J, McCalden RW (2011) Locking compression plates for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed total hip and knee implants. J Arthroplasty 26:886–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haidukewych GJ, Langford J, Liporace FA (2013) Revision for periprosthetic fractures of the hip and knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:368–376

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Duncan CP, Haddad FS (2014) The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J Br 96:713–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2000) The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 15:59–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS (2008) European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 90:1576–1579

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Naqvi GA, Baig SA, Awan N (2012) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification system of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1047–1050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Tomonori Baba, Yasuhiro Homma, Hironori Ochi, Hideo Kobayashi, Mikio Matsumoto & Kazuo Kaneko

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University Nerima Hospital, Nerima-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Yuko Sakamoto, Hirotomo Kuwahara & Kouichi Maeda

Authors
  1. Tomonori Baba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yasuhiro Homma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hironori Ochi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hideo Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mikio Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuko Sakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hirotomo Kuwahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kouichi Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kazuo Kaneko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomonori Baba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baba, T., Homma, Y., Ochi, H. et al. Higher reliability and validity of Baba classification with computerised tomography imaging and implant information for periprosthetic femoral fractures. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 39, 1695–1699 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2674-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2674-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation