Cargando…

Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography

BACKGROUND: In acetabular fractures, the assessment of reduction and implant placement has limitations in conventional 2D intraoperative imaging. 3D imaging offers the opportunity to acquire CT-like images and thus to improve the results. However, clinical experience shows that even 3D imaging has l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Keil, Holger, Beisemann, Nils, Schnetzke, Marc, Vetter, Sven Yves, Swartman, Benedict, Grützner, Paul Alfred, Franke, Jochen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5894195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29636062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0780-7
_version_ 1783313451598217216
author Keil, Holger
Beisemann, Nils
Schnetzke, Marc
Vetter, Sven Yves
Swartman, Benedict
Grützner, Paul Alfred
Franke, Jochen
author_facet Keil, Holger
Beisemann, Nils
Schnetzke, Marc
Vetter, Sven Yves
Swartman, Benedict
Grützner, Paul Alfred
Franke, Jochen
author_sort Keil, Holger
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In acetabular fractures, the assessment of reduction and implant placement has limitations in conventional 2D intraoperative imaging. 3D imaging offers the opportunity to acquire CT-like images and thus to improve the results. However, clinical experience shows that even 3D imaging has limitations, especially regarding artifacts when implants are placed. The purpose of this study was to assess the difference between intraoperative 3D imaging and postoperative CT regarding reduction and implant placement. METHODS: Twenty consecutive cases of acetabular fractures were selected with a complete set of intraoperative 3D imaging and postoperative CT data. The largest detectable step and the largest detectable gap were measured in all three standard planes. These values were compared between the 3D data sets and CT data sets. Additionally, possible correlations between the possible confounders age and BMI and the difference between 3D and CT values were tested. RESULTS: The mean difference of largest visible step between the 3D imaging and CT scan was 2.0 ± 1.8 mm (0.0–5.8, p = 0.02) in the axial, 1.3 ± 1.4 mm (0.0–3.7, p = 0.15) in the sagittal and 1.9 ± 2.4 mm (0.0–7.4, p = 0.22) in the coronal views. The mean difference of largest visible gap between the 3D imaging and CT scan was 3.1 ± 3.6 mm (0.0–14.1, p = 0.03) in the axial, 4.6 ± 2.7 mm (1.2–8.7, p = 0.001) in the sagittal and 3.5 ± 4.0 mm (0.0–15.4, p = 0.06) in the coronal views. A positive correlation between the age and the difference in gap measurements in the sagittal view was shown (rho = 0.556, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative 3D imaging is a valuable adjunct in assessing reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures but has limitations due to artifacts caused by implant material. This can lead to missed malreduction and impairment of clinical outcome, so postoperative CT should be considered in these cases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5894195
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58941952018-04-12 Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography Keil, Holger Beisemann, Nils Schnetzke, Marc Vetter, Sven Yves Swartman, Benedict Grützner, Paul Alfred Franke, Jochen J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: In acetabular fractures, the assessment of reduction and implant placement has limitations in conventional 2D intraoperative imaging. 3D imaging offers the opportunity to acquire CT-like images and thus to improve the results. However, clinical experience shows that even 3D imaging has limitations, especially regarding artifacts when implants are placed. The purpose of this study was to assess the difference between intraoperative 3D imaging and postoperative CT regarding reduction and implant placement. METHODS: Twenty consecutive cases of acetabular fractures were selected with a complete set of intraoperative 3D imaging and postoperative CT data. The largest detectable step and the largest detectable gap were measured in all three standard planes. These values were compared between the 3D data sets and CT data sets. Additionally, possible correlations between the possible confounders age and BMI and the difference between 3D and CT values were tested. RESULTS: The mean difference of largest visible step between the 3D imaging and CT scan was 2.0 ± 1.8 mm (0.0–5.8, p = 0.02) in the axial, 1.3 ± 1.4 mm (0.0–3.7, p = 0.15) in the sagittal and 1.9 ± 2.4 mm (0.0–7.4, p = 0.22) in the coronal views. The mean difference of largest visible gap between the 3D imaging and CT scan was 3.1 ± 3.6 mm (0.0–14.1, p = 0.03) in the axial, 4.6 ± 2.7 mm (1.2–8.7, p = 0.001) in the sagittal and 3.5 ± 4.0 mm (0.0–15.4, p = 0.06) in the coronal views. A positive correlation between the age and the difference in gap measurements in the sagittal view was shown (rho = 0.556, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative 3D imaging is a valuable adjunct in assessing reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures but has limitations due to artifacts caused by implant material. This can lead to missed malreduction and impairment of clinical outcome, so postoperative CT should be considered in these cases. BioMed Central 2018-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5894195/ /pubmed/29636062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0780-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Keil, Holger
Beisemann, Nils
Schnetzke, Marc
Vetter, Sven Yves
Swartman, Benedict
Grützner, Paul Alfred
Franke, Jochen
Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography
title Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography
title_full Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography
title_fullStr Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography
title_full_unstemmed Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography
title_short Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography
title_sort intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3d-imaging compared to computed tomography
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5894195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29636062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0780-7
work_keys_str_mv AT keilholger intraoperativeassessmentofreductionandimplantplacementinacetabularfractureslimitationsof3dimagingcomparedtocomputedtomography
AT beisemannnils intraoperativeassessmentofreductionandimplantplacementinacetabularfractureslimitationsof3dimagingcomparedtocomputedtomography
AT schnetzkemarc intraoperativeassessmentofreductionandimplantplacementinacetabularfractureslimitationsof3dimagingcomparedtocomputedtomography
AT vettersvenyves intraoperativeassessmentofreductionandimplantplacementinacetabularfractureslimitationsof3dimagingcomparedtocomputedtomography
AT swartmanbenedict intraoperativeassessmentofreductionandimplantplacementinacetabularfractureslimitationsof3dimagingcomparedtocomputedtomography
AT grutznerpaulalfred intraoperativeassessmentofreductionandimplantplacementinacetabularfractureslimitationsof3dimagingcomparedtocomputedtomography
AT frankejochen intraoperativeassessmentofreductionandimplantplacementinacetabularfractureslimitationsof3dimagingcomparedtocomputedtomography