ART. XL ???A Treatise on Fractures in the Vicinity of Joints, and on. Certain Forms of Accidental and Congenital Dislocations

Smith, R. Scott

doi:10.1097/00000441-185001000-00011

Cited by 22 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Colles, Smith, Pouteau, and others described fracture morphology with a view to treatment. [3][4][5] With the advent of radiology, it became possible to describe injuries more precisely, including both the degree of displacement and the presence of joint injuries. In 1951, Garland and Werley 6 created a classifi cation based on the presence or absence of joint involvement, metaphyseal comminution and/or angular deformity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are distal radius fracture classifications reproducible? Intra and interobserver agreement

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Various classifi cation systems have been proposed for fractures of the distal radius, but the reliability of these classifications is seldom addressed. For a fracture classification to be useful, it must provide prognostic signifi cance, interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. The aim here was to evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver agreement of distal radius fracture classifi cations. DESIGN AND SETTING:This was a validation study on interobserver and intraobserver reliability. It was developed in the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo -Escola Paulista de Medicina.METHOD: X-rays from 98 cases of displaced distal radius fracture were evaluated by fi ve observers: one third-year orthopedic resident (R3), one sixth-year undergraduate medical student (UG6), one radiologist physician (XRP), one orthopedic trauma specialist (OT) and one orthopedic hand surgery specialist (OHS). The radiographs were classifi ed on three different occasions (times T1, T2 and T3) using the Universal (Cooney), Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/ Association for the Study of Internal Fixation (AO/ASIF), Frykman and Fernández classifi cations. The kappa coeffi cient (κ) was applied to assess the degree of agreement. RESULTS:Among the three occasions, the highest mean intraobserver k was observed in the Universal classifi cation (0.61), followed by Fernández (0.59), Frykman (0.55) and AO/ASIF (0.49). The interobserver agreement was unsatisfactory in all classifi cations. The Fernández classifi cation showed the best agreement (0.44) and the worst was the Frykman classifi cation (0.26). CONCLUSION:The low agreement levels observed in this study suggest that there is still no classifi cation method with high reproducibility.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are distal radius fracture classifications reproducible? Intra and interobserver agreement

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty-three years later, in 1882, von Recklinghausen confirmed their origin and named the tumours neurofibromas [42,47,61]. Even though nowadays Smith is known for his description of what is today referred to as Smith's fracture [81] (the fracture of the distal end of the forearm), like many eminent physicians whose names are attached to medical conditions, his contribution to medicine was much greater than just describing one specific entity [47,78].…”

Section: Robert William Smith and His Timesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the time of his death in 1873, for a liver disease, he was vice president of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland. A major part of Smith's work concerned the pathological anatomy of surgical diseases, particularly of knuckles and joints [78,81]. He took a special interest in rare forms of congenital luxations.…”

Section: Robert William Smith and His Timesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early history of neurofibromatosis type 2 and related forms: earliest descriptions of acoustic neuromas, medical curiosities, misconceptions, landmarks and the pioneers behind the eponyms

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…From this violent impaction of the head of the bone into the lower fragment, a second fracture resulted, which split off the lesser tubercle, along with about two-thirds of the greater, and a small portion of the shaft of the humerus, corresponding to the upper part of the bicipital groove'' [36].…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Proximal Humeral Fractures in the Nineteenth Century: An Historical Review of Preradiographic Sources

Brorson

2011

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The diagnosis and treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus have troubled patients and medical practitioners since antiquity. Preradiographic diagnosis relied on surface anatomy, pain localization, crepitus, and impaired function. During the nineteenth century, a more thorough understanding of the pathoanatomy and pathophysiology of proximal humeral fractures was obtained, and new methods of reduction and bandaging were developed. Questions/purposes I reviewed nineteenth-century principles of (1) diagnosis, (2) classification, (3) reduction, (4) bandaging, and (5) concepts of displacement in fractures of the proximal humerus. Methods A narrative review of nineteenth-century surgical texts is presented. Sources were identified by searching bibliographic databases, orthopaedic sourcebooks, textbooks in medical history, and a subsequent hand search. Results Substantial progress in understanding fractures of the proximal humerus is found in nineteenth-century textbooks. A rational approach to understanding fractures of the proximal humerus was made possible by an appreciation of the underlying functional anatomy and subsequent pathoanatomy. Thus, new principles of diagnosis, pathoanatomic classifications, modified methods of reduction, functional bandaging, and advanced concepts of displacement were proposed, challenging the classic management adhered to for more than 2000 years. Conclusions The principles for modern pathoanatomic and pathophysiologic understanding of proximal humeral fractures and the principles for classification, nonsurgical treatment, and bandaging were established in the preradiographic era.

show abstract

ART. XL ???A Treatise on Fractures in the Vicinity of Joints, and on. Certain Forms of Accidental and Congenital Dislocations

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Are distal radius fracture classifications reproducible? Intra and interobserver agreement

Are distal radius fracture classifications reproducible? Intra and interobserver agreement

Early history of neurofibromatosis type 2 and related forms: earliest descriptions of acoustic neuromas, medical curiosities, misconceptions, landmarks and the pioneers behind the eponyms

Management of Proximal Humeral Fractures in the Nineteenth Century: An Historical Review of Preradiographic Sources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About