Cargando…

Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study

The objective of this study is to evaluate the difference between the amount of bone visible with the superimposition of a radiolucent hybrid external fixator and a graphically simulated metallic frame. Eighteen frames were applied to eighteen bone specimens. The fracture area (FA), the radiolucent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bonardi, Andrea, Rovesti, Gian Luca, Martini, Filippo Maria, Dondi, Francesco, Benedini, Davide, Barbieri, Fabio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8951392/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35324848
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9030120
_version_ 1784675374744993792
author Bonardi, Andrea
Rovesti, Gian Luca
Martini, Filippo Maria
Dondi, Francesco
Benedini, Davide
Barbieri, Fabio
author_facet Bonardi, Andrea
Rovesti, Gian Luca
Martini, Filippo Maria
Dondi, Francesco
Benedini, Davide
Barbieri, Fabio
author_sort Bonardi, Andrea
collection PubMed
description The objective of this study is to evaluate the difference between the amount of bone visible with the superimposition of a radiolucent hybrid external fixator and a graphically simulated metallic frame. Eighteen frames were applied to eighteen bone specimens. The fracture area (FA), the radiolucent area (RLA) and the radiopaque area (ROA) inside the FA were calculated for each construct on both postoperative views. The ratio between the RLA and FA and between the ROA and FA was used to evaluate the amount of bone visible in the FA with a radiolucent and a radiopaque fixator, respectively. Finally, the areas of RLA and ROA were compared using the Wilcoxon test and Friedman test to evaluate the effect of the radiolucent material on the amount of bone visible. Differences were considered significant if p < 0.5. In every specimen p was <0.5. The amount of bone visible was significantly higher with the radiolucent frame compared to the radiopaque frame. Based on the results of this study, the use of radiolucent materials can be a valuable option for external fixation, in order to decrease the radiographic interference of the frame, allowing better assessment of fracture reduction and bone healing on postoperative radiographs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8951392
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89513922022-03-26 Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study Bonardi, Andrea Rovesti, Gian Luca Martini, Filippo Maria Dondi, Francesco Benedini, Davide Barbieri, Fabio Vet Sci Article The objective of this study is to evaluate the difference between the amount of bone visible with the superimposition of a radiolucent hybrid external fixator and a graphically simulated metallic frame. Eighteen frames were applied to eighteen bone specimens. The fracture area (FA), the radiolucent area (RLA) and the radiopaque area (ROA) inside the FA were calculated for each construct on both postoperative views. The ratio between the RLA and FA and between the ROA and FA was used to evaluate the amount of bone visible in the FA with a radiolucent and a radiopaque fixator, respectively. Finally, the areas of RLA and ROA were compared using the Wilcoxon test and Friedman test to evaluate the effect of the radiolucent material on the amount of bone visible. Differences were considered significant if p < 0.5. In every specimen p was <0.5. The amount of bone visible was significantly higher with the radiolucent frame compared to the radiopaque frame. Based on the results of this study, the use of radiolucent materials can be a valuable option for external fixation, in order to decrease the radiographic interference of the frame, allowing better assessment of fracture reduction and bone healing on postoperative radiographs. MDPI 2022-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8951392/ /pubmed/35324848 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9030120 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Bonardi, Andrea
Rovesti, Gian Luca
Martini, Filippo Maria
Dondi, Francesco
Benedini, Davide
Barbieri, Fabio
Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study
title Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study
title_full Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study
title_fullStr Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study
title_short Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study
title_sort comparison between areas of bone visualization using radiolucent hybrid fixator frames and graphically simulated metallic frames: an ex vivo study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8951392/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35324848
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9030120
work_keys_str_mv AT bonardiandrea comparisonbetweenareasofbonevisualizationusingradiolucenthybridfixatorframesandgraphicallysimulatedmetallicframesanexvivostudy
AT rovestigianluca comparisonbetweenareasofbonevisualizationusingradiolucenthybridfixatorframesandgraphicallysimulatedmetallicframesanexvivostudy
AT martinifilippomaria comparisonbetweenareasofbonevisualizationusingradiolucenthybridfixatorframesandgraphicallysimulatedmetallicframesanexvivostudy
AT dondifrancesco comparisonbetweenareasofbonevisualizationusingradiolucenthybridfixatorframesandgraphicallysimulatedmetallicframesanexvivostudy
AT benedinidavide comparisonbetweenareasofbonevisualizationusingradiolucenthybridfixatorframesandgraphicallysimulatedmetallicframesanexvivostudy
AT barbierifabio comparisonbetweenareasofbonevisualizationusingradiolucenthybridfixatorframesandgraphicallysimulatedmetallicframesanexvivostudy