Cargando…

Effect of O-arm on reduction quality and functional recovery of acetabular dome impaction fractures: a retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND: Acetabular dome impaction fractures (ADIF) are difficult to reduce and have a high failure rate. Consistency between the acetabulum and the femoral head is usually assessed using intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy to evaluate the quality of fracture reduction. This study examines the effec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deng, Hongli, Cong, Yuxuan, Lei, Jinlai, Li, Dongyang, Ke, Chao, Fan, Zhiqiang, Wang, Hu, Wang, Pengfei, Zhuang, Yan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37919740
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06987-6
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Acetabular dome impaction fractures (ADIF) are difficult to reduce and have a high failure rate. Consistency between the acetabulum and the femoral head is usually assessed using intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy to evaluate the quality of fracture reduction. This study examines the effects of intraoperative mobile 2D/3DX imaging system (O-arm) on the reduction quality and functional recovery of ADIF. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the data of 48 patients with ADIF treated at Honghui Hospital between October 2018 and October 2021.The patients were divided into the X-ray and O-arm groups. The residual step-off and gap displacements in the acetabular dome region were measured, and fracture reduction quality was evaluated. Hip function was evaluated using the modified Merle d’Aubigné and Postel scoring systems. RESULTS: There were no significant intergroup differences in the preoperative general data (p > 0.05). The mean residual average step displacement in the acetabular dome region was 3.48 ± 2.43 mm and 1.61 ± 1.16 mm (p < 0.05), while the mean gap displacement was 6.72 ± 3.69 mm and 3.83 ± 1.67 mm (p < 0.05) in the X-ray and the O-arm groups, respectively. In the X-ray group, according to the fracture reduction criteria described by Verbeek and Moed et al., one case was excellent, 13 cases were good, 11 cases were poor; 56% were excellent or good. In the O-arm group, seven cases were excellent, 12 cases were good, and four cases were poor; overall in this group, 82.6% were excellent or good (p < 0.05). A total of 46 patients achieved fracture healing at the last follow-up. In the X-ray group, according to the modified Merle d’Aubigné and Postel function score, three cases were excellent,12 cases were good, six cases were middle, three cases were poor; 62.5% were excellent or good, In the O-arm group, 15 cases were excellent, four cases were good, two cases were middle, one case was poor; 86.4% were excellent or good (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The application of O-arm in ADIF can improve fracture reduction quality and functional recovery.