Evaluation of interobserver agreement in Albertoni's classification for mallet finger

Abstract

ObjectiveTo measure the reliability of Albertoni's classification for mallet finger.MethodsAgreement study. Forty-three radiographs of patients with mallet finger were assessed by 19 responders (12 hand surgeons and seven residents). Injuries were classified by Albertoni's classification. For agreement comparison, lesions were grouped as: (A) tendon avulsion; (B) avulsion fracture; (C) fracture of the dorsal lip; and (D) physis injury–and subgroups (each group divided into two subgroups). Agreement was assessed by Fleiss's modification for kappa statistics.ResultsAgreement was excellent for Group A (k = 0.95 (0.93–0.97)) and remained good when separated into A1 and A2. Group B was moderate (k = 0.42 (0.39–0.44)) and poor when separated into B1 and B2. In the Group C, agreement was good (k = 0.72 (0.70–0.74)), but when separated into C1 and C2, it became moderate. Group D was always poor (k = 0.16 (0.14–0.19)). The general agreement was moderate, with (k = 0.57 (0.56–0.58)).ConclusionAlbertoni's classification evaluated for interobserver agreement is considered a reproducible classification by the method used in the research.

Tradução e adaptação cultural do questionário “Thumb Disability Exam – TDX” para o português brasileiro

“…Values of the ICC > 0.61 are considered as good correlation. 26 In our study, these values varied between κ ¼ 0.940 and κ ¼ 0.968. These values denote a high correlation between the test and the retest, proving the questionnaire to be reliable in reproducing the symptoms.…”

Outcome of Non-Surgical Treatment of Mallet Finger

“…( 19 Type A is a pure tendinous injury and Type B is an injury with bone avulsion. ( 19 In types A and B, subtype 1 is described as an injury with less than 30° and subtype 2 by a flexion deformity greater or equal to 30°. 19 Deformities greater than this point of angulation can occur possibly due to damage to the retinacular ligaments and capsular structures in types A2 and B2.…”

“…( 19 In types A and B, subtype 1 is described as an injury with less than 30° and subtype 2 by a flexion deformity greater or equal to 30°. 19 Deformities greater than this point of angulation can occur possibly due to damage to the retinacular ligaments and capsular structures in types A2 and B2. ( 19 Type C is subdivided into C1, congruent joint (stable), and C2, sub-dislocated or dislocated joint (unstable).…”

“… 19 Deformities greater than this point of angulation can occur possibly due to damage to the retinacular ligaments and capsular structures in types A2 and B2. ( 19 Type C is subdivided into C1, congruent joint (stable), and C2, sub-dislocated or dislocated joint (unstable). Type D is subdivided into D1, epiphyseal detachment (Salter and Harris lesion type 1) and D2, fracture-detachment (Salter and Harris type 3).…”

“…[15][16][17][18] Another classification was described by Albertoni who divides the injury according to results from a lateral X-ray of the DIJ, and categorizes it into four types: A, B, C and D. Each type is subdivided into 1 and 2. 19 Type A is a pure tendinous injury and Type B is an injury with bone avulsion. 19 In types A and B, subtype 1 is described as an injury with less than 30° and subtype 2 by a flexion deformity greater or equal to 30°.…”