The accuracy of gap and step-off measurements in acetabular fracture treatment.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 09 2021
14 09 2021
Historique:
received:
12
03
2020
accepted:
30
08
2021
entrez:
15
9
2021
pubmed:
16
9
2021
medline:
17
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The assessment of gaps and steps in acetabular fractures is challenging. Data from various imaging techniques to enable accurate quantification of acetabular fracture displacement are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of pelvic radiographs, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and computed tomography (CT) in detecting gaps and step-offs in acetabular fractures. Sixty patients, surgically treated for acetabular fractures, were included. Five observers (5400 measurements) measured the gaps and step-offs on radiographs and CT scans. Intraoperative fluoroscopy images were reassessed for the presence of gaps and/or step-offs. Preoperatively, 25% of the gaps and 40% of the step-offs were undetected on radiographs compared to CT. Postoperatively, 52% of the gaps and 80% of the step-offs were missed on radiographs compared to CT. Radiograph analysis led to a significantly smaller gap and step-off compared to the CT measurements, an underestimation by a factor of two. Approximately 70% of the residual gaps and step-offs was not detected using intraoperative fluoroscopy. Gaps and step-offs that exceed the critical cut-off indicating worse prognosis often remained undetected on radiographs compared to CT scans. Less-experienced observers tend to overestimate gaps and step-offs compared to the more-experienced observers. In acetabular fracture treatment, gaps and step-offs were often undetected and underestimated on radiographs and intraoperative fluoroscopy in comparison with CT scans. This means that CT is superior to radiographs in detecting acetabular fracture displacement, which is clinically relevant for patient counselling regarding treatment decisions and prognosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34521962
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-97837-9
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-97837-9
pmc: PMC8440593
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18294Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Nov;102(7):947-950
pubmed: 27527248
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 Nov;78(11):1632-45
pubmed: 8934477
Unfallchirurg. 2003 Sep;106(9):741-5
pubmed: 14631529
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Aug;29(8):354-8
pubmed: 26131566
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014 May-Jun;38(3):344-7
pubmed: 24681866
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 May;84(5):752-8
pubmed: 12004016
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Oct 18;99(20):1745-1752
pubmed: 29040129
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32 Suppl 1:S1-S170
pubmed: 29256945
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jul;32(7):e284-e288
pubmed: 29481491
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Dec;139(12):1667-1672
pubmed: 31030241
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Feb;93(2):229-36
pubmed: 21282764
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Dec;478(12):2801-2808
pubmed: 32769535
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Mar;85(3):512-22
pubmed: 12637440
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Jun 6;100(11):922-929
pubmed: 29870442
J Orthop Trauma. 2005 May-Jun;19(5):299-304
pubmed: 15891537
J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Feb;33 Suppl 2:S43-S48
pubmed: 30688859
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Sep 5;94(17):1559-67
pubmed: 22992846
J Orthop Trauma. 1999 Aug;13(6):414-7
pubmed: 10459600
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2006 Aug;14(2):127-32
pubmed: 16914774
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Feb 1;4(2):e2037519
pubmed: 33599774
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 19;14(6):e0218612
pubmed: 31216346