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
. 2020 Dec 15;5(2):198-204.
doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.10.019. eCollection 2021 Mar.

Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of three-dimensionally printed models for the classification of proximal humeral fractures

Hannah Bougher  1 , Petra Buttner  2 , Jonathon Smith  3 , Jennifer Banks  1 , Hyun Su Na  3 , David Forrestal  4 , Clare Heal  1
Affiliations

Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of three-dimensionally printed models for the classification of proximal humeral fractures

Hannah Bougher et al. JSES Int. .

Abstract

Hypothesis: This study aimed to examine whether three-dimensionally printed models (3D models) could improve interobserver and intraobserver agreement when classifying proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) using the Neer system. We hypothesized that 3D models would improve interobserver and intraobserver agreement compared with x-ray, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) and that agreement using 3D models would be higher for registrars than for consultants.

Methods: Thirty consecutive PHF images were selected from a state-wide database and classified by fourteen observers. Each imaging modality (x-ray, 2D CT, 3D CT, 3D models) was grouped and presented in a randomly allocated sequence on two separate occasions. Interobserver and intraobserver agreements were quantified with kappa values (κ), percentage agreement, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Seven orthopedic registrars and seven orthopedic consultants classified 30 fractures on one occasion (interobserver). Four registrars and three consultants additionally completed classification on a second occasion (intraobserver). Interobserver agreement was greater with 3D models than with x-ray (κ = 0.47, CI: 0.44-0.50, 66.5%, CI: 64.6-68.4% and κ = 0.29, CI: 0.26-0.31, 57.2%, CI: 55.1-59.3%, respectively), 2D CT (κ = 0.30, CI: 0.27-0.33, 57.8%, CI: 55.5-60.2%), and 3D CT (κ = 0.35, CI: 0.33-0.38, 58.8%, CI: 56.7-60.9%). Intraobserver agreement appeared higher for 3D models than for other modalities; however, results were not significant. There were no differences in interobserver or intraobserver agreement between registrars and consultants.

Conclusion: Three-dimensionally printed models improved interobserver agreement in the classification of PHFs using the Neer system. This has potential implications for using 3D models for surgical planning and teaching.

Keywords: 3D modeling; Neer system; Proximal humeral fracture; fracture classification; interobserver agreement; intraobserver agreement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Representative images of proximal humeral fractures that observers were asked to classify using the Neer system: (A) X-ray, (B) 2D CT, (C) 3D CT, (D) 3D printed model. 2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional; CT, computed tomography.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Interobserver agreement using Landis and Koch criteria for each modality and group – all observers (top), consultants (middle), and registrars (bottom).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Intraobserver agreement using Landis and Koch criteria for each modality for all observers.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Australian G.D.o.h. MBS Online. http://www9.health.gov.au/mbs/search.cfm?rpp=10&q=57506%2D61110&qt=&sopt... Accessed November 6, 2019.
    1. Berkes M.B., Dines J.S., Little M.T., Garner M.R., Shifflett G.D., Lazaro L.E. The impact of three-dimensional CT imaging on intraobserver and interobserver reliability of proximal humeral fracture classifications and treatment recommendations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:1281–1286. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00199. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bernstein J., Adler L.M., Blank J.E., Dalsey R.M., Williams G.R., Iannotti J.P. Evaluation of the Neer system of classification of proximal humeral fractures with computerized tomographic scans and plain radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1371–1375. - PubMed
    1. Bougher H., Nagendiram A., Banks J., Hall L.M., Heal C. Imaging to improve agreement for proximal humeral fracture classification in adult patient: A systematic review of quantitative studies. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020;11(Suppl 1):S16–S24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.06.019. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brorson S. Fractures of the proximal humerus. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2013;84(suppl351):1–32. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.826083. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources