Ítem
Acceso Abierto
¿El nuevo Sistema Unificado de Clasificación (SUC) de fracturas periprotésicas de cadera es más reproducible que la Clasificación de Vancouver?
| dc.contributor.advisor | Bonilla, Guillermo | |
| dc.creator | Jaramillo, Rodrigo | |
| dc.creator | Bautista, María Piedad | |
| dc.creator.degree | Especialista en Ortopedia y Traumatología FSFB | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-01-26T20:58:54Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-01-26T20:58:54Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2018-01-17 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
| dc.description | Las fracturas periprotésicas son una complicación catastrófica que impacta la salud de los pacientes con artroplastias de cadera. El Sistema Unificado de Clasificación (SUC) fue desarrollado con el propósito de aplicar los principios de manejo de fracturas periprotésicas a cualquier reemplazo articular e incluir trazos de fracturas que el Sistema de Clasificación Vancouver (SCV) no contempla. El propósito de este estudio es evaluar y comparar la reproducibilidad de ambas clasificaciones. | spa |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: The new Unified Classification System (UCS) was developed in order to extend the Vancouver Classification (VC). Whether this new classification is at least as reliable as the traditional VC, has not been determined yet. Question/Purpose: To assess and compare the reproducibility of both classification systems. Methods: Nineteen observers (11 hip and knee trained surgeons and 8 orthopedic residents) assessed the radiographs of 20 periprosthetic fractures of the hip and categorized each case according to the UCS and the VC. The intraobserver and interobserver agreement was evaluated with the AC2 statistic of Gwet with weights for partial agreements. Results: The interobserver agreement for UCS was 0. 57 (95% CI 0. 42 - 0. 73) and 0. 60 (95% CI 0. 35 - 0. 84) for the VC. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0. 82). The intraobserver agreement for USC was 0. 57 (95% CI 0. 50 - 0. 64) and 0. 70 (95% CI 0. 59 - 0. 82). This difference was not statistically significant either (p=0. 94). Conclusions: In spite of being a more detailed system, the new UCS is not superior in terms of reliability to the traditional VC. A deeper understanding of this new classification system is required before it is implemented in clinical practice. | eng |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.48713/10336_14227 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/14227 | |
| dc.language.iso | spa | |
| dc.publisher | Universidad del Rosario | spa |
| dc.publisher.department | Facultad de Medicina | spa |
| dc.publisher.program | Especialización en Ortopedia y Traumatología FSFB | spa |
| dc.rights.accesRights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.rights.acceso | Abierto (Texto completo) | spa |
| dc.rights.licencia | EL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma. PARGRAFO: En caso de presentarse cualquier reclamación o acción por parte de un tercero en cuanto a los derechos de autor sobre la obra en cuestión, EL AUTOR, asumirá toda la responsabilidad, y saldrá en defensa de los derechos aquí autorizados; para todos los efectos la universidad actúa como un tercero de buena fe. EL AUTOR, autoriza a LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO, para que en los términos establecidos en la Ley 23 de 1982, Ley 44 de 1993, Decisión andina 351 de 1993, Decreto 460 de 1995 y demás normas generales sobre la materia, utilice y use la obra objeto de la presente autorización. -------------------------------------- POLITICA DE TRATAMIENTO DE DATOS PERSONALES. Declaro que autorizo previa y de forma informada el tratamiento de mis datos personales por parte de LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO para fines académicos y en aplicación de convenios con terceros o servicios conexos con actividades propias de la academia, con estricto cumplimiento de los principios de ley. Para el correcto ejercicio de mi derecho de habeas data cuento con la cuenta de correo habeasdata@urosario.edu.co, donde previa identificación podré solicitar la consulta, corrección y supresión de mis datos. | spa |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Della Rocca GJ, Leung KS, Pape H-C. Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and future projections. J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Jun;25 Suppl 2(6):S66-70. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Lindahl H. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury. 2007 Jun;38(6):651–4. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–5. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Lindahl H, Malchau H, Rogmark C, Rolfson O. Swedish Hip Artroplasty Register: Annual Report 2013. 2013. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northen Ireland and the Isle of Man. 12th Annual Report 2015. 2015. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Annual Report 2015. 2015. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Sarmah SS, Patel S, Reading G, El-Husseiny M, Douglas S, Haddad FS. Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012 Jul;94(5):302–7. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Franklin J, Malchau H. Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture. Injury. 2007 Jun;38(6):655–60 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Chimutengwende-Gordon M, Khan W, Johnstone D. Recent advances and developments in knee surgery: principles of periprosthetic knee fracture management. Open Orthop J. 2012 Jan;6:301–4. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Whitehouse MR, Mehendale S. Periprosthetic fractures around the knee: current concepts and advances in management. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2014 Jun;7(2):136–44. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Nazur G. Tratamiento de las fracturas periprotésicas de fémur Vancouver B2 y B3. 2012;77:252–9. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Durante R, Hip DO. Fracturas periprotésicas de cadera. 2014;28(2):77–81 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regnér H, Herberts P, Malchau H. Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jun;88(6):1215–22. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Duncan CP, Haddad FS. The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014 Jun;96–B(6):713–6. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Vioreanu MH, Parry MC, Haddad FS, Duncan CP. Field testing the Unified Classification System for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur around a total hip replacement: An international collaboration. Bone Jt J. 2014;96B(11):1472–7. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Difazio FA, Incavo SJ. Periprosthetic fracture after total hip arthroplasty. Semin Arthroplasty. 2005;16(2):119–26. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Huang JF, Shen JJ, Chen JJ, Zheng Y, Du WX, Liu FC, et al. New fracture pattern focusing on implant fracture for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop. 2015;39(9):1765–9. | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Hoffmann MF, Burgers T a, Mason JJ, Williams BO, Sietsema DL, Jones CB. Biomechanical evaluation of fracture fixation constructs using a variable-angle locked periprosthetic femur plate system. Injury. 2014 Jul;45(7):1035–41 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Naqvi GA, Baig SA, Awan N. Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability and Validity of the Vancouver Classification System of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures After Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):1047–50 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Gaski GE, Scully SP. In brief: classifications in brief: Vancouver classification of postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 May;469(5):1507–10 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | de Ridder V a, de Lange S, Koomen AR, Heatley FW. Partridge Osteosynthesis: A Prospective Clinical Study on the Use of Nylon Cerclage Bands and Plates in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Shaft Fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2001 Jan;15(1):61–5 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Cook RE, Jenkins PJ, Walmsley PJ, Patton JT, Robinson CM. Risk factors for periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Jul;466(7):1652–6 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Katz JN, Wright E a, Polaris JJZ, Harris MB, Losina E. Prevalence and risk factors for periprosthetic fracture in older recipients of total hip replacement: a cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Jan;15(1):168 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM, Malchau H. Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Dec;89(12):2658–62 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Dehghan N, McKee MD, Nauth A, Ristevski B, Schemitsch EH. Surgical Fixation of Vancouver Type B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review. J Orthop Trauma. 2014 Apr | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Graham SM, Moazen M, Leonidou A, Tsiridis E. Locking plate fixation for Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a critical analysis of 135 cases. J Orthop Sci. 2013 May;18(3):426–36 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Marsland D, Mears SC. A review of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2012 Sep;3(3):107–20 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Oct;20(7):857–65 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Zuurmond RG, van Wijhe W, van Raay JJ a M, Bulstra SK. High incidence of complications and poor clinical outcome in the operative treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: An analysis of 71 cases. Injury. 2010 Jun;41(6):629–33 | |
| dc.source.bibliographicCitation | Gwet KL. Handbook of inter-rater reliability : the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. 410 p | |
| dc.source.instname | instname:Universidad del Rosario | spa |
| dc.source.reponame | reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR | spa |
| dc.subject | Fracturas periprotésicas | spa |
| dc.subject | Unified Classification System | spa |
| dc.subject | Falla de implante | spa |
| dc.subject | Artroplastia de cadera | spa |
| dc.subject.ddc | Varias ramas de la medicina, Cirugía | |
| dc.subject.decs | Fracturas Periprotésicas | spa |
| dc.subject.decs | Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera | spa |
| dc.subject.keyword | Arthroplasty | eng |
| dc.subject.keyword | Replacement | eng |
| dc.subject.keyword | Hip | eng |
| dc.subject.keyword | Reoperation | eng |
| dc.subject.keyword | Periprosthetic Fractures | eng |
| dc.subject.keyword | Classification | eng |
| dc.subject.keyword | Observer Variation | eng |
| dc.title | ¿El nuevo Sistema Unificado de Clasificación (SUC) de fracturas periprotésicas de cadera es más reproducible que la Clasificación de Vancouver? | spa |
| dc.type | masterThesis | eng |
| dc.type.hasVersion | info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion | |
| dc.type.spa | Trabajo de grado | spa |
