{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04685212298682284, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0317227916056613, 'mean_word_length': 5.047197640117994, '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}}
[Analysis of validity and reliability of three radiographic classification systems for preoperative assessment of bone stock loss in revision total hip arthroplasty].

AIM
It was the purpose of this prospective study to analyze validity and reliability of three different radiographic classification systems, which are used to assess bone stock loss prior to revision total hip arthroplasty.


METHOD
Investigation was performed using the classification systems according to 1) Paprosky et al., 2) Hungerford et al., and 3) the German Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (DGOT). Twenty-eight consecutive patients with diagnosis of aseptic failure of total hip arthroplasty were enrolled in the study. Interrater agreement was analyzed by evaluating the classifications preoperatively by three investigators with different level of clinical experience using a blinded observer technique. Validity was analyzed by comparison of preoperative radiographic findings (n = 3) and an intraoperative control by visualization and palpation (n = 1). Spearman coefficient of correlation (r(s)) was used to establish levels of agreement among multiple ordinal variables.


RESULTS
Interrater reliability testing using paired comparison between the three investigators revealed non-homogeneous coefficients of correlation (r(s): Paprosky femur: 0.45 - 0.67, acetabulum: 0.38 - 0.63; Hungerford: 0.46 - 0.66; DGOT femur: 0.38 - 0.59, acetabulum: 0.42 - 0.76). Paired analysis of correlation between preoperative and intraoperative findings again showed non-homogeneous coefficients of correlation (r(s): Paprosky femur: 0.59 - 0.68, acetabulum: 0.39 - 0.70; Hungerford: 0.39 - 0.74; DGOT femur: 0.44 - 0.60, acetabulum: 0.36 - 0.76). In general, defects were grossly underestimated preoperatively. The level of experience did not influence the validity of measurements.


CONCLUSION
Our results indicate that these classifications do not provide valid and reliable assessment of femoral and acetabular bone stock loss prior to revision total hip arthroplasty.