HSS Journal

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 25–31 | Cite as

The Eftekhar and Kerboul classifications in assessment of developmental dysplasia of the hip in adult patients. Measurement of inter- and intraobserver reliability

  • Alexander Brunner
  • Benjamin Ulmar
  • Heiko Reichel
  • Ralf Decking
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

To measure the inter- and intraobserver reliability of two radiologic classification systems in the evaluation of severity of osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip in adult patients and to compare these systems to historically published data on two more commonly used classification systems described by Crowe and by Hartofikakidis.

Material and methods

Eighty-six dysplastic hips on 66 anteroposterior standard pelvic x-rays were rated according to the criteria of Eftekhar and Kerboul by three observers with different levels of clinical training. To assess intraobserver reliability, the measurement was repeated 3 months later. Statistical analysis was performed by calculating the weighted kappa correlation coefficient and the overall kappa coefficient.

Results

Both classification systems showed a sufficient interobsever reliability, reaching a kappa coefficient of 0.73 for the system according to Eftekhar and 0.716 for the Kerboul classification system. Intraobserver reliability revealed a kappa coefficient of 0.778 for the Eftekhar system and 0.697 for the classification according to Kerboul.

Conclusion

Both systems showed good inter- and intraobserver reliability for use in daily practice. However, they did not reach the known reliability of the grading systems published by Crowe and by Hartofikakidis. Because these systems are more frequently used, we would recommend one of them to grade the severity of osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip in adult patients instead of the ones described by Eftekhar or by Kerboul.

Key words

hip dysplasia prosthesis classification 

References

  1. 1.
    Solomon L, Schnitzler CM (1983) Pathogenetic types of coxarthrosis and implications for treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 101:259–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gunther KP, Sturmer T, Trepte CT, et al. (1999) Incidence of joint-specific risk factors in patients with advanced cox- and gonarthroses in the Ulm Osteoarthrosis Study. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 137:468–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paavilainen T (1997) Total hip replacement for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Acta Orthop Scand 68:77–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris WH (1998) Total hip arthroplasty in the management of congenital hip dislocation. In: Callaghan JJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE (eds) The adult hip. Linnicott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 1165–1182Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charnley J, Feagin JA (1973) Low-friction arthroplasty in congenital subluxation of the hip. Clin Orthop 91:98–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decking R, Brunner A, Gunther KP, et al. (2006) Total hip arthroplasty in congenital dysplasia of the hip: follow-up of a small-dimensioned, cemented straight stem. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 144:380–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandler HP, Reineck FT, Wixson RL, et al. (1981) Total hip replacement in patients younger than thirty years old. A five-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63:1426–1434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collis DK (1984) Cemented total hip replacement in patients who are less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:353–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Collis DK (1991) Long-term (twelve to eighteen-year) follow-up of cemented total hip replacements in patients who were less than fifty years old. A follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:593–597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cornell CN, Ranawat CS (1986) Survivorship analysis of total hip replacements. Results in a series of active patients who were less than fifty-five years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:1430–1434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dorr LD, Takei GK, Conaty JP (1983) Total hip arthroplasties in patients less than forty-five years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:474–479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halley DK, Wroblewski BM (1986) Long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty in patients 30 years of age or younger. Clin Orthop 211:43–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ivory JP, Kershaw CJ, Choudhry R, et al. (1994) Autophor cementless total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthrosis secondary to congenital hip dysplasia. J Arthroplasty 9:427–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chougle A, Hemmady MV, Hodgkinson JP (2005) Severity of hip dysplasia and loosening of the socket in cemented total hip replacement. A long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:16–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61:15–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eftekhar N (1978) Principles of total hip arthroplasty. C V Mosby, St. Louis, pp 437–455Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hartofilakidis G, Stamos K, Ioannidis TT (1988) Low friction arthroplasty for old untreated congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:182–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kerboul M, Mathieu M, Sauzieres P (1987) Total hip replacement for congenital dislocation of the hip. In: Postel M, Kerboul M, Evrard J, Courpied JP (eds) Total hip replacement. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mendes DG, Said MS, Aslan K (1996) Classification of adult congenital hip dysplasia for total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 19:881–887PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson MJ, Harris WH (1999) Total hip arthroplasty with insertion of the acetabular component without cement in hips with total congenital dislocation or marked congenital dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:347–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kerboul M. (1989) Implantation of a total prosthesis in the deformed hip–exemplified by congenital hip dislocation. Orthopade 18:397–417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knecht A, Witzleb WC, Beichler T, et al. (2004) Functional results after surface replacement of the hip: comparison between dysplasia and idiopathic osteoarthritis. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 142:279–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cicchelli D, Allison T (1971) A new procedure for assessing reliability of scoring EEG sleep recordings. Am J EEG Technol 11:101–109Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fleiss J (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Becker DA, Gustilo RB (1995) Double-chevron subtrochanteric shortening derotational femoral osteotomy combined with total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of complete congenital dislocation of the hip in the adult. Preliminary report and description of a new surgical technique. J Arthroplasty 10:313–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cameron HU, Botsford DJ, Park YS (1996) Influence of the Crowe rating on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty in congenital hip dysplasia. J Arthroplasty 11:582–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rasmussen S, Madsen PV, Bennicke K (1993) Observer variation in the Lauge–Hansen classification of ankle fractures. Precision improved by instruction. Acta Orthop Scand 64:693–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T, et al. (1993) The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures. An assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1745–1750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Decking R, Brunner A, Decking J, et al. (2006) Reliability of the Crowe und Hartofilakidis classifications used in the assessment of the adult dysplastic hip. Skeletal Radiol 35:282–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Brunner
    • 1
  • Benjamin Ulmar
    • 1
  • Heiko Reichel
    • 1
  • Ralf Decking
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations