Reliability of Assessing Distal Radius Fractures on a Smartphone Versus PACS

• Published in: Hand (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 19; no. 1; pp. 52 - 57
• Main Authors: Adams, Alexander J., Miller, Andrew, Tan, Emily, Shin, Eon K., Tosti, Rick
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.01.2024
• Subjects: Humans; Observer Variation; Radiology Information Systems; Reproducibility of Results; Smartphone; Wrist Fractures; distal radius; evaluation; fracture/dislocation; treatment; specialty; anatomy; radiology; diagnosis; research and health outcomes; forearm
• ISSN: 1558-9447; 1558-9455; 1558-9455
• DOI: 10.1177/15589447221105547

Background: Communication between health care providers is becoming more intertwined with technology. During the pandemic, telehealth strategies grew exponentially. Remote viewing of imaging on a smartphone may offer efficient communication; however, the reliability of injury assessment when compared with traditional methods is not known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate intraobserver and interobserver reliability of distal radius fracture radiograph review for smartphone versus traditional Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). Methods: Eight evaluators (3 attending hand surgeons, 3 hand surgery fellows, 2 orthopedic residents) evaluated 26 distal radius fracture radiographs on 2 different viewers: smartphone or PACS. The reviewers were asked to record: (1) operative or nonoperative preference; (2) fracture classification (based on Fernandez and Jupiter); and (3) treatment strategy (volar plate, dorsal plate, pins, cast, bridge plate, or fragment-specific fixation). The percentage of intraobserver agreement was recorded for each observer. Reliability was calculated using Fleiss’ kappa coefficient for intraobserver and interobserver agreement and graded by strength of correlation. Results: Intraobserver agreement averaged 97% when deciding between operative and nonoperative treatment, 76% for classification, and 84% for treatment. Kappa scores were graded as “excellent” for operative decision and “substantial” for classification and treatment. Attendings and fellows generally had higher agreement than that of residents. Interobserver agreement was graded as “substantial” for all categories for both PACS and smartphone. Conclusions: Evaluation of radiographs on a smartphone for the purpose of treating distal radius fractures does not appear to be significantly different from an evaluation on traditional PACS.