Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Orthop. Jun 18, 2024; 15(6): 560-569
Published online Jun 18, 2024. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v15.i6.560
Published online Jun 18, 2024. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v15.i6.560
Table 1 Example of data collection
Patient | Age at the surgery | S1DE | Sex | Type of fracture (AO/OTA) | Fracting score | NURD score | LEG-NUI score | Union | Non-union | Follow-up (months) |
1 | 22 | DX | M | 4.2C | 9 | 7 | 5 | X | 18 | |
2 | 28 | SN | M | 4.2A | 6 | 5 | 6 | X | 12 | |
3 | 82 | DX | M | 4.2A | 6 | 5 | 4 | X | 12 |
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for scores and age on outcome of nonunion and sex
Female (n = 47) | Male (n = 83) | Total | |||
Nonunion (n = 7) | Union (n = 40) | Nonunion (n = 34) | Union (n = 49) | ||
Age | |||||
Min/Max | 32/84 | 18/86 | 19/82 | 18/87 | 18/87 |
Med (IQR) | 52 (43; 55.5) | 54 (42.2; 62) | 45 (28.2; 57.8) | 45.0 (27; 60) | 46.5 (34; 60) |
mean ± SD | 52.1 ± 16.4 | 52.5 ± 17.5 | 44.6 ± 17.9 | 44.5 ± 20.0 | 47.4 ± 18.7 |
FRACTING | |||||
Min/Max | 5.0/10 | 1.0/10.0 | 5.0/10.0 | 2.0/9.0 | 1.0/10.0 |
Med (IQR) | 8.0 (6.0; 9.5) | 5.0 (3.0; 7.0) | 8.0 (6.0; 9.0) | 4.0 (3.0; 7.0) | 6.0 (4.0; 8.0) |
mean ± SD | 7.7 ± 2.1 | 5.2 ± 2.3 | 7.8 ± 1.8 | 5.1 ± 2.2 | 6.0 ± 2.4 |
NURD | |||||
Min/Max | 0/7.0 | 0/8.0 | 1.0/11.0 | 0/8.0 | 0/11.0 |
Med (IQR) | 1.0 (1.0; 3.5) | 1.0 (1.0; 3.0) | 4.5 (3.0; 7.0) | 2.0 (1.0; 4.0) | 3.0 (1.0; 4.0) |
mean ± SD | 2.4 ± 2.4 | 1.8 ± 1.8 | 4.9 ± 2.8 | 2.9 ± 2.1 | 3.1 ± 2.5 |
LEG-NUI | |||||
Min/Max | 1.0/6.0 | 0/7.0 | 1.0/6.0 | 1.0/6.0 | 0/7.0 |
Med (IQR) | 3.0 (2.0; 4.0) | 2.0 (1.0; 3.0) | 4.0 (3.2; 5.0) | 2.0 (1.0; 3.0) | 2.0 (1.0; 4.0) |
mean ± SD | 3.1 ± 1.7 | 2.1 ± 1.5 | 4.1 ± 4.1 | 2.2 ± 1.2 | 2.7 ± 1.6 |
Table 3 Patients grouped by age
Age | Nonunion (%) | Union (%) | Total (%) |
18-45 | 21 (34) | 41 (66) | 62 (48) |
46-60 | 13 (35) | 24 (65) | 37 (28) |
> 60 | 7 (23) | 24 (77) | 31 (24) |
Table 4 Nonunion risk determination confusion matrix
Union | Nonunion | Total | |
Predicted union | 89 | 37 | 126 |
Predicted nonunion | 0 | 4 | 4 |
Total | 89 | 41 | 130 |
Table 5 Tibia FRACTure prediction healING days confusion matrix
Union | Nonunion | Total | |
Predicted union | 77 | 15 | 92 |
Predicted nonunion | 12 | 26 | 38 |
Total | 89 | 41 | 130 |
Table 6 Leeds-Genoa Nonunion Index confusion matrix
Union | Nonunion | Total | |
Predicted union | 81 | 17 | 98 |
Predicted nonunion | 8 | 24 | 32 |
Total | 89 | 41 | 130 |
Table 7 Score evaluation performance metrics
Score | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | F-measure (%) |
FRACTING | 63.41 | 86.52 | 68.42 | 83.70 | 67.00 |
NURD | 14.63 | 96.63 | / | 70 | 18 |
LEG-NUI | 58.54 | 91.07 | 75.31 | 83.27 | 58.06 |
- Citation: Quarta D, Grassi M, Lattanzi G, Gigante AP, D'Anca A, Potena D. Three predictive scores compared in a retrospective multicenter study of nonunion tibial shaft fracture. World J Orthop 2024; 15(6): 560-569
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v15/i6/560.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v15.i6.560