Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Feb 25:14:70.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-70.

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

Mohit Bhandari  1 , Mary M Chiavaras, Naveen Parasu, Hema Choudur, Olufemi Ayeni, Rajesh Chakravertty, Simrit Bains, Alisha Hak, Sheila Sprague, Brad Petrisor
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Mohit Bhandari et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study procedures: inter-rater reliability assessment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Early post-operative radiographs and RUSH assessment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Late post-operative radiographs and RUSH assessment.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Reliability of healing and RUSH score for initial study (Single Radiographs) vs. current study (Serial Radiographs).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Changes in the Mean RUSH score with increasing time from baseline, femoral neck fractures.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Changes in the Mean RUSH score with increasing time from baseline, intertrochanteric fractures.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Liporace FA, Egol KA, Tejwani N, Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ. What’s new in hip fractures? Current concepts. Am J Orthop. 2005;34(2):66–74. - PubMed
    1. Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(11):897–902. doi: 10.1007/s00198-004-1627-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA. World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1997;7(5):407–413. doi: 10.1007/PL00004148. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blomfeldt R, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S, Soderqvist A, Tidermark J. Comparison of internal fixation with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures. Randomized, controlled trial performed at four years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1680–1688. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02655. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elmerson S, Sjostedt A, Zetterberg C. Fixation of femoral neck fracture: a randomized 2-year follow-up study of hook pins and sliding screw plate in 222 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66(6):507–510. doi: 10.3109/17453679509002303. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types