header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1669 - 1673
1 Dec 2014
Van der Merwe JM Haddad FS Duncan CP

The Unified Classification System (UCS) was introduced because of a growing need to have a standardised universal classification system of periprosthetic fractures. It combines and simplifies many existing classification systems, and can be applied to any fracture around any partial or total joint replacement occurring during or after operation. Our goal was to assess the inter- and intra-observer reliability of the UCS in association with knee replacement when classifying fractures affecting one or more of the femur, tibia or patella.

We used an international panel of ten orthopaedic surgeons with subspecialty fellowship training and expertise in adult hip and knee reconstruction (‘experts’) and ten residents of orthopaedic surgery in the last two years of training (‘pre-experts’). They each received 15 radiographs for evaluation. After six weeks they evaluated the same radiographs again but in a different order.

The reliability was assessed using the Kappa and weighted Kappa values.

The Kappa values for inter-observer reliability for the experts and the pre-experts were 0.741 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.707 to 0.774) and 0.765 (95% CI 0.733 to 0.797), respectively. The weighted Kappa values for intra-observer reliability for the experts and pre-experts were 0.898 (95% CI 0.846 to 0.950) and 0.878 (95% CI 0.815 to 0.942) respectively.

The UCS has substantial inter-observer reliability and ‘near perfect’ intra-observer reliability when used for periprosthetic fractures in association with knee replacement in the hands of experienced and inexperienced users.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1669–73.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 79-B, Issue 6 | Pages 908 - 913
1 Nov 1997
Masterson EL Masri BA Duncan CP Rosenberg A Cabanela M Gross M

An analysis of the cement mantle obtained with the Exeter impaction allografting system at one centre showed that it was either deficient or absent in almost 47% of Gruen zones. We therefore examined the mantle obtained using this system at another hospital and compared the results with those from the CPT and Harris Precoat Systems at other centres.

The surgical indications for the procedure and the patient details were broadly similar in all four hospitals. There was some variation in the frequency of use of cortical strut allografts, cerclage wires and wire mesh to supplement the impaction allograft. Analysis of the cement mantles showed that when uncertain Gruen zones were excluded, the incidence of zones with areas of absence or deficiency of the cement was 47% and 50%, respectively, for the two centres using the Exeter system, 21% for the CPT system and 18% for the Harris Precoat system.

We measured the difference in size between the proximal allograft impactors and the definitive prosthesis for each system. The Exeter system impactors are shorter than the definitive prosthesis and taper sharply so that the cavity created is inadequate, especially distally. The CPT proximal impactors are considerably longer than the definitive prosthesis and are designed to give a mantle of approximately 2 mm medially and laterally and 1.5 mm anteriorly and posteriorly. The Harris Precoat proximal impactors allow for a mantle with a circumference of 0.75 mm in the smaller sizes and 1 mm in the larger.

Many reports link the longevity of a cemented implant to the adequacy of the cement mantle. For this reason, femoral impaction systems require careful design to achieve a cement mantle which is uninterrupted in its length and adequate in its thickness. Our results suggest that some current systems require modification.