Abstract
A large number of classification systems exist to assist in the evaluation and treatment of periprosthetic fractures following joint replacement. They vary in the language or categorisation they employ, the joints to which they are differently applied, the factors they assess, and the hierarchy or importance assigned to those factors. Not all incorporate the three most important variables which should govern treatment (fracture location, implant fixation, bone quality), nor the factors which have been demonstrated to most prominently influence outcomes. To a greater or lesser extent they attempt to include the principles of the Vancouver Classification System, and yet they differ in ways that lead to awkwardness in their application within the clinical setting. As an example, for fractures of the patella alone, three different systems have been proposed.
As the result of an international effort endorsed by the AO/OTA, the Universal Classification System, or UCS, has been developed. It incorporates the most important factors that should influence evaluation, treatment, and outcomes evaluation. It applies the system to the musculoskeletal system as a whole, regardless of the joint involved or the bone that is broken. And it uses a single common language to describe the injury and prescribe the logical principles of treatment.
It is hoped the UCS will appeal to our colleagues worldwide and will assist all of us in the care of our patients who suffer a periprosthetic fracture after joint replacement; be that the hip, knee, ankle, shoulder, elbow or wrist. The UCS can be applied with equal ease and merit to all.
