Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 1/2020

01-01-2020 | Acetabular Fracture | Original Article • PELVIS - ANATOMY

What is the value of 3D virtual reality in understanding acetabular fractures?

Authors: Lars Brouwers, Albert F. Pull ter Gunne, Mariska A. de Jongh, Thomas J. J. Maal, Rinaldo Vreeken, Frank H. W. M. van der Heijden, Luke P. H. Leenen, Willem R. Spanjersberg, Sven H. van Helden, Diederik O. Verbeek, Mike Bemelman, Koen W. W. Lansink

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Acetabular fractures are difficult to classify owing to the complex three-dimensional (3D) anatomy of the pelvis. 3D printing helps to understand and reliably classify acetabular fracture types. 3D-virtual reality (VR) may have comparable benefits. Our hypothesis is that 3D-VR is equivalent to 3D printing in understanding acetabular fracture patterns.

Methods

A total of 27 observers of various experience levels from several hospitals were requested to classify twenty 3D printed and VR models according to the Judet–Letournel classification. Additionally, surgeons were asked to state their preferred surgical approach and patient positioning. Time to classify each fracture type was recorded. The cases were randomized to rule out a learning curve. Inter-observer agreement was analyzed using Fleiss’ kappa statistics (κ).

Results

Inter-observer agreements varied by observer group and type of model used to classify the fracture: medical students: 3D print (κ = 0.61), VR (κ = 0.41); junior surgical residents: 3D print (0.51) VR (0.54); senior surgical residents: 3D print (0.66) VR (0.52); junior surgeons: 3D print (0.56), VR (0.43); senior surgeons: 3D print (κ = 0.59), VR (κ = 0.42).
Using 3D printed models, there was more agreement on the surgical approach (junior surgeons κ = 0.23, senior surgeons κ = 0.31) when compared with VR (junior surgeons κ = 0.17, senior surgeons 0.25). No difference was found in time used to classify these fractures between 3D printing and VR for all groups (P = 1.000).

Conclusions

The Judet–Letournel acetabular classification stays difficult to interpret; only moderate kappa agreements were found. We found 3D-VR inferior to 3D printing in classifying acetabular fractures. Furthermore, the current 3D-VR technology is still not practical for intra-operative use.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Nawaz A, Khurshid A, Iftikhar H, GR W MN, Dar R (2014) Operative management of displaced acetabular fractures: an institutional experience with a midterm follow-up. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 16:245–252CrossRef Nawaz A, Khurshid A, Iftikhar H, GR W MN, Dar R (2014) Operative management of displaced acetabular fractures: an institutional experience with a midterm follow-up. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 16:245–252CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Patil A, Shyam A, Sancheti PK (2016) Management of acetabulum fractures-basic principles and tips and tricks. Trauma Int 2(2):20–24 Patil A, Shyam A, Sancheti PK (2016) Management of acetabulum fractures-basic principles and tips and tricks. Trauma Int 2(2):20–24
3.
go back to reference Letournel E (1980) Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop 151:81–106 Letournel E (1980) Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop 151:81–106
4.
go back to reference Ohashi K, El-Khoury GY, Abu-Zahra KW, Berbaum KS (2006) Interobserver agreement for letournel acetabular fracture classification with multidetector CT: are standard judet radiographs necessary? 1. Radiology 241(2):386–391CrossRef Ohashi K, El-Khoury GY, Abu-Zahra KW, Berbaum KS (2006) Interobserver agreement for letournel acetabular fracture classification with multidetector CT: are standard judet radiographs necessary? 1. Radiology 241(2):386–391CrossRef
5.
go back to reference O’Toole RV, Cox G, Shanmuganathan K, Castillo RC, Turen CH, Sciadini MF et al (2010) Evaluation of computed tomography for determining the diagnosis of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 24(5):284–290CrossRef O’Toole RV, Cox G, Shanmuganathan K, Castillo RC, Turen CH, Sciadini MF et al (2010) Evaluation of computed tomography for determining the diagnosis of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 24(5):284–290CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Garrett J, Halvorson J, Carroll E, Webb LX (2012) Value of 3-D CT in classifying acetabular fractures during orthopedic residency training. Orthopedics 35(5):e615–e620CrossRef Garrett J, Halvorson J, Carroll E, Webb LX (2012) Value of 3-D CT in classifying acetabular fractures during orthopedic residency training. Orthopedics 35(5):e615–e620CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Brouwers L, Pull-ter-Gunne AF, de-Jongh MA, van-der-Heijden FHWM, Leenen LPH, Spanjersberg WR et al (2018) The value of 3D printed models in understanding acetabular fractures. 3D Print Addit Manuf 5(1):37–46CrossRef Brouwers L, Pull-ter-Gunne AF, de-Jongh MA, van-der-Heijden FHWM, Leenen LPH, Spanjersberg WR et al (2018) The value of 3D printed models in understanding acetabular fractures. 3D Print Addit Manuf 5(1):37–46CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Satava RM (1994) Emerging medical applications of virtual reality: a surgeon’s perspective. Artif Intell Med 6(4):281–288CrossRef Satava RM (1994) Emerging medical applications of virtual reality: a surgeon’s perspective. Artif Intell Med 6(4):281–288CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Fornaro J, Keel M, Harders M, Marincek B, Székely G, Frauenfelder T (2010) An interactive surgical planning tool for acetabular fractures: initial results. J Orthop Surg Res 5(1):50CrossRef Fornaro J, Keel M, Harders M, Marincek B, Székely G, Frauenfelder T (2010) An interactive surgical planning tool for acetabular fractures: initial results. J Orthop Surg Res 5(1):50CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Aïm F, Lonjon G, Hannouche D, Nizard R (2016) Effectiveness of virtual reality training in orthopaedic surgery. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 32(1):224–232CrossRef Aïm F, Lonjon G, Hannouche D, Nizard R (2016) Effectiveness of virtual reality training in orthopaedic surgery. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 32(1):224–232CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Vaughan N, Dubey VN, Wainwright TW, Middleton RG (2016) A review of virtual reality based training simulators for orthopaedic surgery. Med Eng Phys 38(2):59–71CrossRef Vaughan N, Dubey VN, Wainwright TW, Middleton RG (2016) A review of virtual reality based training simulators for orthopaedic surgery. Med Eng Phys 38(2):59–71CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Zeng C, Xing W, Wu Z, Huang H, Huang W (2016) A combination of three-dimensional printing and computer-assisted virtual surgical procedure for preoperative planning of acetabular fracture reduction. Injury 47(10):2223–2227CrossRef Zeng C, Xing W, Wu Z, Huang H, Huang W (2016) A combination of three-dimensional printing and computer-assisted virtual surgical procedure for preoperative planning of acetabular fracture reduction. Injury 47(10):2223–2227CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Judet R, Judet J, Letournel E (1964) Fractures of the acetabulum: classification and surgical approaches for open reduction. preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 46:1615–1646CrossRef Judet R, Judet J, Letournel E (1964) Fractures of the acetabulum: classification and surgical approaches for open reduction. preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 46:1615–1646CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Giannoudis PV, Grotz MR, Papakostidis C, Dinopoulos H (2005) Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(1):2–9CrossRef Giannoudis PV, Grotz MR, Papakostidis C, Dinopoulos H (2005) Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(1):2–9CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Fleis JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76(5):378–382CrossRef Fleis JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76(5):378–382CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Riva G (2014) Cahpter 39 - Medical clinical uses of virtual worlds. In: Grimshaw M (ed) The Oxford handbook of virtuality. Oxford University Press, pp 649–665 Riva G (2014) Cahpter 39 - Medical clinical uses of virtual worlds. In: Grimshaw M (ed) The Oxford handbook of virtuality. Oxford University Press, pp 649–665
18.
go back to reference Boudissa M, Oliveri H, Chabanas M, Tonetti J (2018) Computer-assisted surgery in acetabular fractures: virtual reduction of acetabular fracture using the first patient-specific biomechanical model simulator. Orthop Traumatol: Surg Res 104(3):359–362 Boudissa M, Oliveri H, Chabanas M, Tonetti J (2018) Computer-assisted surgery in acetabular fractures: virtual reduction of acetabular fracture using the first patient-specific biomechanical model simulator. Orthop Traumatol: Surg Res 104(3):359–362
19.
go back to reference Maini L, Verma T, Sharma A, Sharma A, Mishra A, Jha S (2018) Evaluation of accuracy of virtual surgical planning for patient-specific pre-contoured plate in acetabular fracture fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(4):495–504CrossRef Maini L, Verma T, Sharma A, Sharma A, Mishra A, Jha S (2018) Evaluation of accuracy of virtual surgical planning for patient-specific pre-contoured plate in acetabular fracture fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(4):495–504CrossRef
Metadata
Title
What is the value of 3D virtual reality in understanding acetabular fractures?
Authors
Lars Brouwers
Albert F. Pull ter Gunne
Mariska A. de Jongh
Thomas J. J. Maal
Rinaldo Vreeken
Frank H. W. M. van der Heijden
Luke P. H. Leenen
Willem R. Spanjersberg
Sven H. van Helden
Diederik O. Verbeek
Mike Bemelman
Koen W. W. Lansink
Publication date
01-01-2020
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02537-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 1/2020 Go to the issue