Top

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography

Authors: Holger Keil, Nils Beisemann, Marc Schnetzke, Sven Yves Vetter, Benedict Swartman, Paul Alfred Grützner, Jochen Franke

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

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.

Johnel O, Gullberg B, Allander E, Kanis JA. The apparent incidence of hip fracture in Europe: a study of national register sources. Osteoporos Int. 1992;2:298–302.CrossRef

Kendoff D, Gardner MJ, Citak M, Kfuri M, Thumes B, Krettek C, et al. Value of 3D fluoroscopic imaging of acetabular fractures comparison to 2D fluoroscopy and CT imaging. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128:599–605.CrossRefPubMed

Oberst M, Hauschild O, Konstantinidis L, Suedkamp NP, Schmal H. Effects of three-dimensional navigation on intraoperative management and early postoperative outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of displaced acetabular fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73:950–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22710769. [cited 7 Apr 2017]CrossRefPubMed

Khoury A, Siewerdsen JH, Whyne CM, Daly MJ, Kreder HJ, Moseley DJ, et al. Intraoperative cone-beam CT for image-guided tibial plateau fracture reduction. Comput Aided Surg. 2007;12:195–207.CrossRefPubMed

von Recum J, Wendl K, Vock B, Grützner PA, Franke J. [Intraoperative 3D C-arm imaging. State of the art]. Unfallchirurg. 2012;115(3):196-201. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22367513.

Franke J, von Recum J, Suda AJ, Grützner PA, Wendl K. Intraoperative three-dimensional imaging in the treatment of acute unstable syndesmotic injuries. J Bone Jt Surgery-American Vol. 2012;94:1386–90. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22854991. [cited 7 Apr 2017]CrossRef

Beerekamp MSH (Suzan), GSI S, Ubbink DT, Maas M, NWL S, Goslings JC. Accuracy and consequences of 3D-fluoroscopy in upper and lower extremity fracture treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:4019–28. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22975150. [cited 7 Apr 2017]CrossRef

Beck M, Rotter R, Gradl G, Herlyn P, Kröber M, Mittlmeier T, et al. Reliability and consequences of intraoperative 3D imaging to control positions of thoracic pedicle screws. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:1371–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22699397. [cited 7 Apr 2017]CrossRefPubMed

Eckardt H, Lind D, Toendevold E. Open reduction and internal fixation aided by intraoperative 3-dimensional imaging improved the articular reduction in 72 displaced acetabular fractures. Acta Orthop. 2015;86:684–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26012545. [cited 7 Apr 2017]CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Vetter SY, Euler F, von Recum J, Wendl K, Gru tzner PA, Franke J. Impact of intraoperative cone beam computed tomography on reduction quality and implant position in treatment of Tibial plafond fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37:977–82. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27188693. [cited 2 Mar 2017]CrossRefPubMed

11.

Matta JM, Anderson LM, Epstein HC, Hendricks P. Fractures of the acetabulum. A retrospective analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986:230–40. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3698382

12.

Dunet B, Tournier C, Billaud A, Lavoinne N, Fabre T, Durandeau A. Acetabular fracture: long-term follow-up and factors associated with secondary implantation of total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99:281–90. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23562708. [cited 24 Aug 2017]CrossRefPubMed

13.

Morison Z, Moojen DJF, Nauth A, Hall J, McKee MD, Waddell JP, et al. Total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture is associated with lower survivorship and more complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:392–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26335343. [cited 24 Aug 2017]CrossRefPubMed

14.

Schwabe P, Altintas B, Schaser K-D, Druschel C, Kleber C, Haas NP, et al. Three-dimensional fluoroscopy-navigated percutaneous screw fixation of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:700–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662989. [cited 7 Apr 2017]CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sebaaly A, Riouallon G, Zaraa M, Jouffroy P. The added value of intraoperative CT scanner and screw navigation in displaced posterior wall acetabular fracture with articular impaction. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102:947–50. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27527248. [cited 7 Apr 2017]CrossRefPubMed

16.

Stuby F, Seethaler AC, Shiozawa T, Weise K, Mroue A, Badke A, et al. Evaluation of image quality of two different three-dimensional cone-beam-scanners used for orthopedic surgery in the bony structures of the pelvis in comparison with standard CT scans. Z Orthop Unfall. 2011;149:659–67. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21590660 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Seeberger R, Buchgeister M, Seethaler AC, Shiozawa T, Hoffmann J. Image quality of two different mobile cone beam computed tomographs for maxillofacial surgery. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2012;40:731–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22361302. [cited 22 Aug 2017]CrossRef

18.

Pessis E, Sverzut J-M, Campagna R, Guerini H, Feydy A, Drapé J-L. Reduction of metal artifact with dual-energy CT: virtual monospectral imaging with fast kilovoltage switching and metal artifact reduction software. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2015;19:446–55. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26696083. [cited 24 Aug 2017]CrossRefPubMed

19.

Huang JY, Kerns JR, Nute JL, Liu X, Balter PA, Stingo FC, et al. An evaluation of three commercially available metal artifact reduction methods for CT imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:1047–67. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25585685. [cited 24 Aug 2017]CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Schnetzke M, Fuchs J, Vetter SY, Beisemann N, Keil H, Grützner P-A, et al. Intraoperative 3D imaging in the treatment of elbow fractures—a retrospective analysis of indications, intraoperative revision rates, and implications in 36 cases. BMC Med Imaging. 2016;16:24. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26987661. [cited 7 Apr 2017]CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Carelsen B, Haverlag R, Ubbink DT, Luitse JSK, Goslings JC. Does intraoperative fluoroscopic 3D imaging provide extra information for fracture surgery? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128:1419–24. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18791727. [cited 2017 Apr 2017]CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kraus M, Fischer E, Gebhard F, Richter PH. Image quality and effective dose of a robotic flat panel 3D C-arm vs computed tomography. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2016;12:743–50. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26678361. [cited 24 Aug 2017]CrossRef

23.

You J, Dai Y, Huang N, Li J-J, Cheng L, Zhang X-L, et al. Low-dose computed tomography with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and low tube voltage in craniocervical computed tomographic angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39:774–80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25938211. [cited 12 Jan 2018]CrossRefPubMed

24.

Desai GS, Uppot RN, Yu EW, Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV. Impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose in multidetector CT of large body size adults. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(8):1631–40.

25.

Ritter L, Mischkowski RA, Neugebauer J, Dreiseidler T, Scheer M, Keeve E, et al. The influence of body mass index, age, implants, and dental restorations on image quality of cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108:e108–16. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19716480. [cited 12 Jan 2018]CrossRefPubMed

Title: Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography
Authors: Holger Keil
Nils Beisemann
Marc Schnetzke
Sven Yves Vetter
Benedict Swartman
Paul Alfred Grützner
Jochen Franke
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0780-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Intraoperative assessment of reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures—limitations of 3D-imaging compared to computed tomography

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Prognostic factors affecting clinical outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: importance of functional recovery by 3 months after surgery

Clinical characteristics of pyogenic spondylitis and psoas abscess at a tertiary care hospital: a retrospective cohort study

Evaluation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell quality from patients with congenital pseudoarthrosis of the tibia

Open pelvic fracture: the killing fracture?

The potent anti-inflammatory effect of Guilu Erxian Glue extracts remedy joint pain and ameliorate the progression of osteoarthritis in mice

A comparison of clinical- and patient-reported outcomes of the cemented ATTUNE and PFC sigma fixed bearing cruciate sacrificing knee systems in patients who underwent total knee replacement with both prostheses in opposite knees