Cargando…
The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) represent a major cause for surgical revision after hip arthroplasty with detrimental consequences for patients. The Vancouver classification has been traditionally used since its introduction in 1995. The Unified Classification System (UCS) was de...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8944079/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35321671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05240-w |
_version_ | 1784673645550895104 |
---|---|
author | Schopper, Clemens Luger, Matthias Hipmair, Günter Schauer, Bernhard Gotterbarm, Tobias Klasan, Antonio |
author_facet | Schopper, Clemens Luger, Matthias Hipmair, Günter Schauer, Bernhard Gotterbarm, Tobias Klasan, Antonio |
author_sort | Schopper, Clemens |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) represent a major cause for surgical revision after hip arthroplasty with detrimental consequences for patients. The Vancouver classification has been traditionally used since its introduction in 1995. The Unified Classification System (UCS) was described in 2014, to widen the spectrum by aiming for a more comprehensive approach. The UCS also aimed to replace the Vancouver classification by expanding the idea of the Vancouver classification to the whole musculoskeletal apparatus. After introduction of the UCS, the question was raised, whether the UCS found its place in the field of analysing PFFs. Therefore, this systematic review was performed to investigate, the use of the UCS compared to the established Vancouver classification. METHODS: Medline was searched for reports published between 1 January 2016 and 31 November 2020, without language restriction. Included were original articles, irrespective of the level of evidence and case reports reporting on a PFF and using either the Vancouver or the UCS to classify the fractures. Excluded were reviews and systematic reviews. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six studies were included in the analysis. UCS has not been used in a single registry study, giving a pooled cohort size of 3299 patients, compared to 59,178 patients in studies using the Vancouver classification. Since 2016, one study using UCS was published in a top journal, compared to 37 studies using the Vancouver classification (p=0.29). During the study period, the number of yearly publications remained stagnant (p=0.899). CONCLUSIONS: Despite valuable improvement and expansion of the latter UCS, to date, the Vancouver system clearly leads the field of classifying PFFs in the sense of the common use. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05240-w. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8944079 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89440792022-03-25 The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review Schopper, Clemens Luger, Matthias Hipmair, Günter Schauer, Bernhard Gotterbarm, Tobias Klasan, Antonio BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) represent a major cause for surgical revision after hip arthroplasty with detrimental consequences for patients. The Vancouver classification has been traditionally used since its introduction in 1995. The Unified Classification System (UCS) was described in 2014, to widen the spectrum by aiming for a more comprehensive approach. The UCS also aimed to replace the Vancouver classification by expanding the idea of the Vancouver classification to the whole musculoskeletal apparatus. After introduction of the UCS, the question was raised, whether the UCS found its place in the field of analysing PFFs. Therefore, this systematic review was performed to investigate, the use of the UCS compared to the established Vancouver classification. METHODS: Medline was searched for reports published between 1 January 2016 and 31 November 2020, without language restriction. Included were original articles, irrespective of the level of evidence and case reports reporting on a PFF and using either the Vancouver or the UCS to classify the fractures. Excluded were reviews and systematic reviews. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six studies were included in the analysis. UCS has not been used in a single registry study, giving a pooled cohort size of 3299 patients, compared to 59,178 patients in studies using the Vancouver classification. Since 2016, one study using UCS was published in a top journal, compared to 37 studies using the Vancouver classification (p=0.29). During the study period, the number of yearly publications remained stagnant (p=0.899). CONCLUSIONS: Despite valuable improvement and expansion of the latter UCS, to date, the Vancouver system clearly leads the field of classifying PFFs in the sense of the common use. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05240-w. BioMed Central 2022-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8944079/ /pubmed/35321671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05240-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Schopper, Clemens Luger, Matthias Hipmair, Günter Schauer, Bernhard Gotterbarm, Tobias Klasan, Antonio The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review |
title | The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review |
title_full | The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review |
title_fullStr | The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review |
title_short | The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review |
title_sort | race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : vancouver vs unified classification system (ucs) - a systematic review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8944079/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35321671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05240-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schopperclemens theracefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT lugermatthias theracefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT hipmairgunter theracefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT schauerbernhard theracefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT gotterbarmtobias theracefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT klasanantonio theracefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT schopperclemens racefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT lugermatthias racefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT hipmairgunter racefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT schauerbernhard racefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT gotterbarmtobias racefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview AT klasanantonio racefortheclassificationofproximalperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvervsunifiedclassificationsystemucsasystematicreview |