Search

Introduction: Acetabular defect recognition and classification remains a challenging field of practice for orthopedic surgeons. Recently, the Acetabular Defect Classification (ADC) has been introduced to provide a reliable, reproducible and intuitive classification system. In order to improve ease of use and efficiency of the ADC, a browser-based application has been created. We hypothesized that the ADC application can improve rating performance of non-specialists (medical students) to achieve good inter- and intra-rater agreement and will compare favorable to the results of specialists (experienced surgeons) without the help of the application., Materials and Methods: The ADC is based on the integrity of the acetabular rim and the supporting structures. It consists of four main types of defects ascending in severity. These defects are further subdivided in A-C, narrowing down defect location. 80 randomized radiographs were graded according to ADC by three non-specialists (medical students) with help of the ADC application and by three specialists (orthopedic surgeons) without help of the application to evaluate the difference in inter-rater agreement between groups. To account for intra-rater agreement, the rating process was repeated after a reasonable wash-out period., Results: Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement within the non-specialist group rated lower when compared to the specialist group while still falling into the good agreement range. The student group presented with k values of 0.61 for inter-rater agreement and 0.68 for intra-rater agreement, while the surgeon group displayed k values of 0.72 for inter-rater agreement and 0.83 for intra-rater agreement., Conclusion: The app-guided assessment of acetabular defects offers a promising innovative approach to simplify complex situations. It makes the challenging field of acetabular revision arthroplasty more approachable especially for less experienced surgeons and offers insight and guidance in the planning stage as well as intra-operative setting., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The complex field of femoral defects in revision hip arthroplasty displays a lack of standardized, intuitive pre- and intraoperative assessment. To address this issue, the femoral defect classification (FDC) is introduced to offer a reliable, reproducible and an intuitive classification system with a clear therapeutic guideline., Materials and Methods: The FDC is based on the integrity of the main femoral segments which determine function and structural support. It focuses on the femoral neck, the metaphysis consisting of the greater and lesser trochanter, and the femoral diaphysis. The four main categories determine the location of the defect while subcategories a, b and c are being used to classify the extent of damage in each location. In total, 218 preoperative radiographs were retrospectively graded according to FDC and compared to intraoperatively encountered bone defects. To account for inter-rater and intra-rater agreement, 5 different observers evaluated 80 randomized cases at different points in time., Results: A Cohens kappa of 0.832 ± 0.028 could be evaluated, accounting for excellent agreement between preoperative radiographs and intraoperative findings. To account for inter-rater reliability, 80 patients have been evaluated by 5 different observers. Testing for inter-rater reliability, a Fleiss Kappa of 0.688 could be evaluated falling into the good agreement range. When testing for intra-rater reliability, Cohens Kappa of each of the 5 raters has been analyzed and the mean was evaluated at 0.856 accounting for excellent agreement., Conclusion: The FDC is a reliable and reproducible classification system. It combines intuitive use and structured design and allows for consistent preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance. A therapeutic algorithm has been created according to current literature and expert opinion. Due to the combination of the FDC with the recently introduced Acetabular Defect Classification (ADC) a structured approach to the entire field of hip revision arthroplasty is now available., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: In recent literature, the increasing number of medical litigations, both in terms of the number of cases being filed and the substantive costs associated with lawsuits, has been described. This study aims to provide an overview of the profile of litigation for orthopedic and trauma surgery to describe the differences and the development of the number of cases over time., Patients and Materials: A retrospective review of all litigations between 2000 and 2017 was conducted using the institutional legal database. The causes of litigation were documented and classified into seven major categories. In addition to plaintiff characteristics, the litigation outcomes and the differences between emergency and elective surgery were analyzed., Results: A total of 230 cases were evaluated. The mean age of the plaintiffs was 44.6 ± 20.1 years, and 56.8% were female. The main reasons for litigation were claimed inappropriate management (46.1%), misdiagnosis (22.6), and poor nursing care (8.3%). Significantly more litigations were filed against surgeons of the orthopedic subspecialty compared with trauma surgeons (78%; p ≤ 0.0001). There were significantly fewer litigations per 1000 cases filed overall in 2009-2017 (65% less; p = 0.003) than in 2000-2008., Conclusion: Our results could not confirm the often-stated trend of having more litigations against orthopedic and trauma surgeons. Although the absolute numbers increased, the number of litigations per 1000 patients treated declined. Patients who underwent elective surgery were more likely to file complaints than emergency patients., (© 2021. The Author(s).)