Computer-assisted preoperative planning of bone fracture fixation surgery: A state-of-the-art review

Background: Bone fracture fixation surgery is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the orthopedic field. However, fracture healing complications occur frequently, and the choice of the most optimal surgical approach often remains challenging. In the last years, computational tools have been developed with the aim to assist preoperative planning procedures of bone fracture fixation surgery. Objectives: The aims of this review are 1) to provide a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art in computer-assisted preoperative planning of bone fracture fixation surgery, 2) to assess the clinical feasibility of the existing virtual planning approaches, and 3) to assess their clinical efficacy in terms of clinical outcomes as compared to conventional planning methods. Methods: A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE-PubMed, Ovid-EMBASE, Ovid-EMCARE, Web of Science, and Cochrane libraries to identify articles reporting on the clinical use of computer-assisted preoperative planning of bone fracture fixation. Results: 79 articles were included to provide an overview of the state-of-the art in virtual planning. While patient-specific geometrical model construction, virtual bone fracture reduction, and virtual fixation planning are routinely applied in virtual planning, biomechanical analysis is rarely included in the planning framework. 21 of the included studies were used to assess the feasibility and efficacy of computer-assisted planning methods. The reported total mean planning duration ranged from 22 to 258 min in different studies. Computer-assisted planning resulted in reduced operation time (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD): -2.19; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): -2.87, -1.50), less blood loss (SMD: -1.99; 95% CI: -2.75, -1.24), decreased frequency of fluoroscopy (SMD: -2.18; 95% CI: -2.74, -1.61), shortened fracture healing times (SMD: -0.51; 95% CI: -0.97, -0.05) and less postoperative complications (Risk Ratio (RR): 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.90). No significant differences were found in hospitalization duration. Some studies reported improvements in reduction quality and functional outcomes but these results were not pooled for meta-analysis, since the reported outcome measures were too heterogeneous. Conclusion: Current computer-assisted planning approaches are feasible to be used in clinical practice and have been shown to improve clinical outcomes. Including biomechanical analysis into the framework has the potential to further improve clinical outcome.