Intraobserver and Interobserver Reliability of the Computed Tomography-Based Classifications Used in Posterior Malleolar Fractures: The Haraguchi and Bartonícek-Rammelt Classifications.

BACKGROUND: Three main computed tomography (CT)-based classification systems have been defined and used for posterior malleolar fractures. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability of two of these systems has never been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the Haraguchi (HC) and Bartonícek-Rammelt (BRC) classifications. METHODS: Axial and sagittal CT sections and three-dimensional reconstruction images of 60 fractures were evaluated twice by six observers at a 6-week interval. Cohen κ values for intraobserver reliability and Fleiss κ values for interobserver reliability were calculated. RESULTS: The interobserver reliability of the HC was fair in both assessments (Fleiss κ: 0.263 and 0.249 for the first and second evaluations, respectively). The interobserver reliability of the BRC was moderate in both evaluations (Fleiss κ: 0.535 and 0.447, respectively). The intraobserver reliability values (Cohen κ) of the HC were determined to be between 0.532 and 0.927 for the six observers. These values indicated moderate agreement for one observer, substantial for four, and very good for one. Intraobserver reliability values for the BRC were determined to be between Cohen κ of 0.626 and 0.884. Based on these values, the BRC's intraobserver reliability indicated substantial agreement for two observers and very good for four observers. CONCLUSIONS: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability values of the BRC were higher than those of the HC.

How Reliable Are Digital Radiographs for Evaluating Intra-articular Displacement in Ankle Epiphyseal Fractures: Can Computed Tomography Be Eliminated?

BACKGROUND: The amount of intra-articular displacement of the fracture is the main issue when deciding the treatment method between conservative or surgical means in intra-articular fractures. In this study, we aimed to determine the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of measuring intra-articular displacement and to compare the digital radiographic and computed tomographic (CT) evaluations in distal tibia intra-articular epiphyseal fractures. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with digital radiography and CT scans were included in the study. Four sets were prepared with these images. Two of four sets were prepared as ankle radiographs, and the other two sets were prepared with CT scan views. Five observers were asked to measure the intra-articular displacement of the fractures in millimeters and also to make a decision between displacement amounts over or under 2 mm. Intraclass correlation coefficient scores were calculated for evaluation of intraobserver reliability, and Fleiss kappa values were calculated for interobserver reliability evaluations. A value greater than 0.75 was accepted as excellent agreement; 0.75 to 0.40 as intermediate to good agreement; and below 0.40 as poor agreement. RESULTS: There were 15 Salter-Harris type 3, 13 Salter-Harris type 4, seven triplanar, and two Tillaux-Chaput fractures. Both intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities were slightly higher for CT scan evaluations. Amounts of displacement were found to be measured higher after CT scan evaluations other than radiographs. After the measurement of joint displacements on CT scans, it was observed that the measurements found below 2 mm on the digital radiograph measurement changed to greater than or equal to 2 mm in 16.4% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that digital radiographs cannot replace CT scans for the measurement of intra-articular displacement in ankle epiphyseal fractures.

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the fracture demographics: Data from a tertiary care hospital in Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the types and the frequency of fractures, both in the pediatric and adult population during the COVID-19 pandemic and to find out the differences in comparison to the non-pandemic period. METHODS: Patients who were admitted to the hospital with a new fracture during pandemic period (March 16 to May 22, 2020) were evaluated. Control group consisted of patients with new fractures admitted to the hospital in the same date range in 2018 and 2019. The patients were divided into two groups as ≤16 years old (group 1) and >16 years old (group 2). The evaluation was based on the age and gender of the patients and localization of the fractures. Hospitalized and surgically treated patients were evaluated as well. RESULTS: A total of 1794, 1747, and 670 fractures were observed in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. Mean age of the patients in group 1 was found to have decreased in the pandemic period (p<0.001). The most common fracture sites in the pediatric population were the distal forearm and distal arm, whereas hand, distal forearm, and foot were most common fracture sites in adults, in both pandemic and non-pandemic periods. The proportional increase in femoral and tibial shaft fractures in group 1, and toe, tibial shaft, and metacarpal fractures in group 2 was found to be statistically significantly (p<0.05). In group 1; 6.8%, 7.7%, and 14.6% of the fractures were treated surgically in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively (p<0.001). For group 2, these rates were 20.1%, 18.6%, and 18.1%, respectively (p=0.67). There were 48, 29, and 26 open fractures in 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively (p=0.066). In pandemic period, duration of the hospital stay was significantly shorter for distal humerus and proximal femur fractures (p values= 0.001 and 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSION: We observed that the frequency of fractures decreased by approximately one-third during the pandemic period compared with that in the non-pandemic period. The mean age of the patients with a fracture in the pediatric group was found to have decreased also. Finger fractures in pediatric patients and metatarsal fractures in adult patients were found to have significantly decreased during the pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Diagnostic study.