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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |