Cargando…

3D-Printed Models versus CT Scan and X-Rays Imaging in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Triple-Blind Interobserver Reliability Comparison Study

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are one of the most frequent fractures in the elderly and are the third most fractures after those of the hip and wrist. PHFs are assessed clinically through conventionally standard imaging (X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans). The present study ai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Puglisi, Gianluca, Montemagno, Marco, Denaro, Regina, Condorelli, Giuseppe, Caruso, Vincenzo Fabrizio, Vescio, Andrea, Testa, Gianluca, Pavone, Vito
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208975/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35733650
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/5863813
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are one of the most frequent fractures in the elderly and are the third most fractures after those of the hip and wrist. PHFs are assessed clinically through conventionally standard imaging (X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans). The present study aims to conduct the diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic efficacy of the 3D-printed models (3DPMs) for the PHFs, compared with the standard imaging. OBJECTIVES: In terms of fracture classification and surgical indication, PHFs have poor interobserver agreement between orthopedic surgeons using traditional imaging such as X-rays and CT scan. Our objective is to compare interobserver reliability in diagnostic evaluation of PHFs using 3DPMs compared to traditional imaging. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were elders aged >65 years, fracture classification AO/OTA 11 B and 11 C, and no pathological fractures or polytrauma. In addition, 9 PHFs were assessed by 6 evaluators through a questionnaire and double-blinded administered for each imaging (X-ray and CT scan) and 3DPMs for each fracture. The questionnaire for each method regarded Neer classification, Hertel classification, treatment indication (IT), and surgical technique (ST). Interobserver reliability was calculated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Nine patients with PHF were included in the study (66% female). The Neer and Hertel classifications between imaging types had similar ICC values between raters with no statistical differences. IT reliability using CT scan and 3DPMs (ICC = 1; (p=0.116)) assessed better agreement compared with X-rays IT. The ST reliability using 3DPMs (ICC = 0.755; p=0.002) was statistically superior to traditional imaging (ST-RX ICC = -0.004 (p=0.454); ST-CT ICC = 0.429 (p=0.116)). CONCLUSION: Classification systems like Neer and Hertel offer poor reliability between operators. The 3DPMs for evaluating diagnostics are comparable to CT images but superior to the surgical technique agreement. The application of 3DPMs is effective for preoperative fracture planning and the modeling of patient-specific hardware.