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

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.

Radiographic union score for hip substantially improves agreement between surgeons and radiologists.

BACKGROUND: Despite the prominence of hip fractures in orthopedic trauma, the assessment of fracture healing using radiographs remains subjective. The variability in the assessment of fracture healing has important implications for both clinical research and patient care. With little existing literature regarding reliable consensus on hip fracture healing, this study was conducted to determine inter-rater reliability between orthopedic surgeons and radiologists on healing assessments using sequential radiographs in patients with hip fractures. Secondary objectives included evaluating a checklist designed to assess hip fracture healing and determining whether agreement improved when reviewers were aware of the timing of the x-rays in relation to the patients' surgery. METHODS: A panel of six reviewers (three orthopedic surgeons and three radiologists) independently assessed fracture healing using sequential radiographs from 100 patients with femoral neck fractures and 100 patients with intertrochanteric fractures. During their independent review they also completed a previously developed radiographic checklist (Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH)). Inter and intra-rater reliability scores were calculated. Data from the current study was compared to the findings from a previously conducted study where the same reviewers, unaware of the timing of the x-rays, completed the RUSH score. RESULTS: The agreement between surgeons and radiologists for fracture healing was moderate for "general impression of fracture healing" in both femoral neck (ICC = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42-0.71) and intertrochanteric fractures (0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.62). Using a standardized checklist (RUSH), agreement was almost perfect in both femoral neck (ICC = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87) and intertrochanteric fractures (0.88, 95% CI: 0.86-0.90). We also found a high degree of correlation between healing and the total RUSH score using a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis, there was an area under the curve of 0.993 for femoral neck cases and 0.989 for intertrochanteric cases. Agreement within the radiologist group and within the surgeon group did not significantly differ in our analyses. In all cases, radiographs in which the time from surgery was known resulted in higher agreement scores compared to those from the previous study in which reviewers were unaware of the time the radiograph was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement in hip fracture radiographic healing may be improved with the use of a standardized checklist and appears highly influenced by the timing of the radiograph. These findings should be considered when evaluating patient outcomes and in clinical studies involving patients with hip fractures. Future research initiatives are required to further evaluate the RUSH checklist.

Assessment of radiographic fracture healing in patients with operatively treated femoral neck fractures.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to determine interrater and intrarater reliabilities on the healing assessment of femoral neck fractures between orthopedic surgeons and radiologists and to test the performance of a checklist system for hip fracture healing. METHODS: We developed and used a scoring system [radiographic union score in hip fracture (RUSH) score] to determine the validity of quantifying fracture healing. A panel of 6 reviewers (3 orthopedic surgeons and 3 radiologists) independently assessed fracture healing with the RUSH system using radiographs of 150 femoral neck fractures at various stages in healing on 2 occasions 4 weeks apart. RESULTS: Using subjective assessment, the interrater agreement between reviewer groups for fracture healing was fair [intraclass coefficient = 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01-0.41] with no significant difference in agreement within the orthopedic surgeon and radiologist groups (0.17 vs. 0.21). There was higher agreement for fracture healing using the RUSH score (intraclass coefficient = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.30-0.69) compared with physician impression of healing, highlighting the difficulties with plain radiographic assessments of healing. Intrarater agreement was consistently high across all measures for both surgeons and radiologists. The RUSH score and medial cortex bridging correlated well with overall assessment of healing (r = 0.868 and 0.643, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The level of agreement between and within orthopedic surgeon and radiologist reviewers in the assessment of fracture healing is low, though intrarater agreement is high. The RUSH score shows promise as a tool to improve agreement on fracture healing. Studies evaluating reliability and accuracy of healing with clinical information and temporal evaluation are needed and may further improve agreement.

Evaluating implants in orthopaedic trials: tips for conducting research.

The availability of quality research on orthopaedic implants is important for orthopaedic clinical practice, though in many cases such research is deficient in the literature. Randomized trials are dwarfed in number by observational studies which, though also valuable, do not provide the same validity of evidence. This is partly due to the unique challenges faced by orthopaedic clinicians when attempting to conduct randomized trials in areas such as randomization, blinding, and follow-up. These challenges can be addressed with the use of techniques such as expertise-based randomization, assessment that is objective and independent, and implementation of a protocol for consistent follow-up before the study is underway. Although they do not eliminate all of the hurdles faced in implant evaluation trials, the tips outlined in this article have the potential to significantly ease the burdens of conducting high-quality research.

Standard operating procedures: the devil is in the details.

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) play an important role in clinical research due to their role in promoting good clinical practice. Due to their importance, it will be explored in this article how and why this is the case, in addition to examining the value of SOPs in conducting an effective clinical trial. This will be done by first introducing the concept of SOPs, which is followed by a discussion of their advantages and how to best develop and use them.

Getting educated: e-learning resources in the design and execution of surgical trials.

An evidence-based approach to research, which includes important aspects such as critical appraisal, is essential for the effective conduct of clinical trials. Researchers who are interested in educating themselves about its principles in order to incorporate them into their trials face challenges when attempting to acquire this information from traditional learning sources. E-learning resources offer an intriguing possibility of overcoming the challenges posed by traditional learning, and show promise as a way to expand accessibility to quality education about evidence-based principles. An assessment of existing e-learning resources reveals positive educational avenues for researchers, although significant flaws exist. The Global EducatorTM by Global Research Solutions addresses many of these flaws and is an e-learning resource that combines convenience with comprehensiveness.