{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015358361774744027, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005119453924914676, 'mean_word_length': 5.859649122807017, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reliability of acetabular bone defect classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Three classifications for assessment of acetabular bone loss were evaluated for their reliability. The 3 systems assessed were the system described by Gross, the system described by Paprosky, and the classification of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. In this study, we assessed their reliability based on the preoperative radiographs alone. Intraobserver agreement was measured by evaluating the classifications by the 3 innovators, 3 reconstructive orthopaedic surgeons, and 3 residents. Interobserver agreement was assessed among the reconstructive surgeons and the residents. The unweighted kappa statistic was used to establish levels of agreement. The innovators had better intraobserver agreement than the other 2 groups. Their agreement was only in the moderate range, however. For the noninnovators, intraobserver and interobserver agreement generally was poor for all 3 classifications assessed. Our results indicate that these classifications do not provide statistically reliable information for preoperative assessment of acetabular bone stock loss.