An interobserver reliability comparison between the Orthopaedic Trauma Association's open fracture classification and the Gustilo and Anderson classification

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


AimsTo evaluate interobserver reliability of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association's open fracture classification system (OTA-OFC).Patients and MethodsPatients of any age with a first presentation of an open long bone fracture were included. Standard radiographs, wound photographs, and a short clinical description were given to eight orthopaedic surgeons, who independently evaluated the injury using both the Gustilo and Anderson (GA) and OTA-OFC classifications. The responses were compared for variability using Cohen's kappa.ResultsThe overall interobserver agreement was κ = 0.44 for the GA classification and κ = 0.49 for OTA-OFC, which reflects moderate agreement (0.41 to 0.60) for both classifications. The agreement in the five categories of OTA-OFC was: for skin, κ = 0.55 (moderate); for muscle, κ = 0.44 (moderate); for arterial injury, κ = 0.74 (substantial); for contamination, κ = 0.35 (fair); and for bone loss, κ = 0.41 (moderate).ConclusionAlthough the OTA-OFC, with similar interobserver agreement to GA, offers a more detailed description of open fractures, further development may be needed to make it a reliable and robust tool.

    loading  Loading Related Articles