Neer classification for proximal humeral fractures (original) (raw)
Related papers
Classifications in Brief: The Neer Classification for Proximal Humerus Fractures
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 2013
Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of their immediate family, has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
Reproducibility of three classifications of proximal humeral fractures
Einstein (São Paulo), 2012
Objective: To propose a new system for classifying proximal humeral neck fractures, and to evaluate intra-and interobserver agreement using the Neer system that is the most commonly used in the area and the Arbeit Gemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen system created by an European group, and a new classification system proposed by the authors of this study. Methods: A total of 56 patients with proximal humeral fractures were selected, and submitted to digitized simple radiography in antero-posterior shoulder and scapular profile. Radiographs were analyzed by three observers at time one, and then three and six weeks later. The kappa coefficient modified by Fleiss was used for the analysis. Results: The mean intra-observer Kappa agreement index (k=0.687) of the new classification, was higher than both the Neer classification (k=0.362) and the Arbeit Gemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (k=0.46). The mean interobserver Kappa agreement index (0.446) of the new classification, also had better results than both the Neer classification (k=0.063) and the Arbeit Gemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (k=0.028). Conclusion: the new classification considering bone compression had higher results for intra-and interobserver compared to the Neer system, and the Arbeit Gemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen system.
Proximal humeral fracture classification systems revisited
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 2011
Hypothesis: This study evaluated several classification systems and expert surgeons' anatomic understanding of these complex injuries based on a consecutive series of patients. We hypothesized that current proximal humeral fracture classification systems, regardless of imaging methods, are not sufficiently reliable to aid clinical management of these injuries. Materials and methods: Complex fractures in 96 consecutive patients were investigated by generation of rapid sequence prototyping models from computed tomography Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) imaging data. Four independent senior observers were asked to classify each model using 4 classification systems: Neer, AO, Codman-Hertel, and a prototype classification system by Resch. Interobserver and intraobserver k coefficient values were calculated for the overall classification system and for selected classification items. Results: The k coefficient values for the interobserver reliability were 0.33 for Neer, 0.11 for AO, 0.44 for Codman-Hertel, and 0.15 for Resch. Interobserver reliability k coefficient values were 0.32 for the number of fragments and 0.30 for the anatomic segment involved using the Neer system, 0.30 for the AO type (A, B, C), and 0.53, 0.48, and 0.08 for the Resch impaction/distraction, varus/valgus and flexion/extension subgroups, respectively. Three-part fractures showed low reliability for the Neer and AO systems. Discussion: Currently available evidence suggests facture classifications in use have poor intra-and interobserver reliability despite the modality of imaging used thus making treating these injuries difficult as weak as affecting scientific research as well. This study was undertaken to evaluate the reliability of several systems using rapid sequence prototype models. Conclusion: Overall interobserver k values represented slight to moderate agreement. The most reliable interobserver scores were found with the Codman-Hertel classification, followed by elements of Resch's trial system. The AO system had the lowest values. The higher interobserver reliability values for the Joint RNOH/IOMS National Research Ethics Committee approval was received to analyze deidentified medical images of proximal humeral fractures (REC reference number: 07/H0724/40).
Interobserver agreement of Neer and AO classifications for proximal humeral fractures
ANZ journal of surgery, 2016
The classification of proximal humeral fractures remains challenging. The two main classification systems used, the Neer and the AO classification, have both been shown to have less than ideal interobserver agreement. Agreement in classification is required, however, to guide fracture management. Data from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry were collected and the X-rays of 104 proximal humeral fractures were reviewed by three orthopaedic consultants. They classified the fractures according to the Neer and AO classifications, as well as their simplified versions. Interobserver agreement was then assessed using kappa statistics. Interobserver agreement was better overall in the Neer classification, which was moderate (kappa = 0.40-0.58), than the AO classification, which was fair to moderate (kappa = 0.31-0.54). When simplified, the Neer and AO classification interobserver agreement remained similar. The classification of proximal humeral fractures with both the Neer a...
Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association, 2016
The Neer classification is the most commonly used fracture classification system for proximal humeral fractures. Inter- and intra-observer agreement is limited, especially for comminuted fractures. A possibly more straightforward and reliable classification system is the Hertel classification. The aim of this study was to compare the inter- and intra-observer variability of the Hertel with the Neer classification in comminuted proximal humeral fractures. Four observers evaluated blinded radiographic images (X-rays, CT-scans, and CT-scans with 3D-reconstructions) of 60 patients. After at least two months classification was repeated. Inter-observer agreement on plain X-rays was fair for both Hertel (κ = 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.62) and Neer (κ = 0.29; 0.09-0.42). Inter-observer agreement on CT-scans was substantial (κ = 0.63; 0.56-0.72) for Hertel and moderate for Neer (κ = 0.51; 0.29-0.68). Inter-observer agreement on 3D-reconstructions was moderate for both Hertel (κ = 0.60; 0.53-0.72) a...
PROXIMAL HUMERUS PUBLICATION FINAL.pdf
Introduction: Three and four -part fractures represent 13%-16% of proximal humeral fractures. They occur more frequently in older patients after the cancellous bone has become weakened by senility and osteopenia. Treatment options for these displaced fractures include closed reduction and k-wire fixation, open reduction and internal fixation and arthroplasty. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the functional results in patient with three and four-part proximal humeral fractures treated by different modalities, over a period of 2 years. Materials and Methods: We present a retrospective study of 40 three-part and four part proximal humeral fractures according to Neer's classification, treated by simple technique of Kirschner wire Osteosynthesis, open reduction and internal fixation with clover-leaf plate or proximal humeral locking plate system (PHILOS) and hemiarthroplasty of the proximal humerus. The criteria for inclusion were a diagnosis of undisplaced three-part fracture, displaced three and four part fractures confirmed by three independent observers. Results: The study was conducted over a period of two years with an average follow up of 20.7 months (Range: 12 to 40 months). There were 14 undisplaced three-part fractures impacted in valgus, seven displaced three part fractures, two three-part fracture with dislocated head, four four-part fractures with dislocated head. Conclusion: Three-and four-part proximal humeral fractures are difficult injuries to evaluate and treat. Nevertheless, an algorithm for treatment has been devised. Preoperative and intraoperative evaluation must address fracture pattern, bone quality, patient motivation, and expectations. A thorough knowledge of normal glenohumeral relationships is essential to achieve optimal surgical results.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 2011
Background The diagnosis and treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus have troubled patients and medical practitioners since antiquity. Preradiographic diagnosis relied on surface anatomy, pain localization, crepitus, and impaired function. During the nineteenth century, a more thorough understanding of the pathoanatomy and pathophysiology of proximal humeral fractures was obtained, and new methods of reduction and bandaging were developed. Questions/purposes I reviewed nineteenth-century principles of (1) diagnosis, (2) classification, (3) reduction, (4) bandaging, and (5) concepts of displacement in fractures of the proximal humerus. Methods A narrative review of nineteenth-century surgical texts is presented. Sources were identified by searching bibliographic databases, orthopaedic sourcebooks, textbooks in medical history, and a subsequent hand search. Results Substantial progress in understanding fractures of the proximal humerus is found in nineteenth-century textbooks. A rational approach to understanding fractures of the proximal humerus was made possible by an appreciation of the underlying functional anatomy and subsequent pathoanatomy. Thus, new principles of diagnosis, pathoanatomic classifications, modified methods of reduction, functional bandaging, and advanced concepts of displacement were proposed, challenging the classic management adhered to for more than 2000 years. Conclusions The principles for modern pathoanatomic and pathophysiologic understanding of proximal humeral fractures and the principles for classification, nonsurgical treatment, and bandaging were established in the preradiographic era.