Three-dimensional reconstruction and virtual reposition of fragments compared to two dimensional measurements of midshaft clavicle fracture shortening.


Journal

BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 Mar 2022
Historique:
received: 21 10 2021
accepted: 28 02 2022
entrez: 8 3 2022
pubmed: 9 3 2022
medline: 11 3 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Midshaft clavicle fracture shortening measurement is a reported key element for indication to surgical management and reporting of clinical trials. Determination of pre-fracture clavicle length for shortening measurement remains an unresolved issue. The purpose of the study was to assess accuracy of a novel technique of three-dimensional reconstruction and virtual reposition of bone fragments (3D-VR) for determination of pre-fracture clavicle length and measurement of shortening. Accuracy of 3D-VR measurements was assessed using 5 synthetic bone clavicle fracture models. Measurements were compared between caliper and 3D-VR technique measurements. Correlation between 3D-VR and 2D measurements on standard radiographs was assessed on a cohort of 20 midshaft fractures. Four different methods for 2D measurements were assessed. Mean difference between caliper measurements and 3D-VR was 0.74 mm (95CI = - 2.51;3.98) (p = 0.56) on synthetic fracture models. Mean differences between 3D-VR and standard radiograph shortening measurement methods were 11.95 mm (95CI = 7.44;16.46) for method 1 (Jeray et al.) and 9.28 mm (95CI = 4.77;13.79) for method 2 (Smekal et al.) (p < 0.05). Differences were - 1.02 mm (95CI = - 5.53;3.48) for method 3 (Silva et al.) and - 2.04 mm (95CI = - 6.55;2.47) for method 4 (own method). Interobserver correlation ranged between 0.85 and 0.99. A false positive threshold of 20 mm was measured by the two observers in 25% of the case according to method of method 1, 30-35% with method 2, 15% with method 3 et al. and 5-10% with the method 4. 3D VR is accurate in measuring midshaft clavicle fracture length and shortening. Two dimensional measurements may be used for approximation of clavicular shortening.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Midshaft clavicle fracture shortening measurement is a reported key element for indication to surgical management and reporting of clinical trials. Determination of pre-fracture clavicle length for shortening measurement remains an unresolved issue. The purpose of the study was to assess accuracy of a novel technique of three-dimensional reconstruction and virtual reposition of bone fragments (3D-VR) for determination of pre-fracture clavicle length and measurement of shortening.
METHODS METHODS
Accuracy of 3D-VR measurements was assessed using 5 synthetic bone clavicle fracture models. Measurements were compared between caliper and 3D-VR technique measurements. Correlation between 3D-VR and 2D measurements on standard radiographs was assessed on a cohort of 20 midshaft fractures. Four different methods for 2D measurements were assessed.
RESULTS RESULTS
Mean difference between caliper measurements and 3D-VR was 0.74 mm (95CI = - 2.51;3.98) (p = 0.56) on synthetic fracture models. Mean differences between 3D-VR and standard radiograph shortening measurement methods were 11.95 mm (95CI = 7.44;16.46) for method 1 (Jeray et al.) and 9.28 mm (95CI = 4.77;13.79) for method 2 (Smekal et al.) (p < 0.05). Differences were - 1.02 mm (95CI = - 5.53;3.48) for method 3 (Silva et al.) and - 2.04 mm (95CI = - 6.55;2.47) for method 4 (own method). Interobserver correlation ranged between 0.85 and 0.99. A false positive threshold of 20 mm was measured by the two observers in 25% of the case according to method of method 1, 30-35% with method 2, 15% with method 3 et al. and 5-10% with the method 4.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
3D VR is accurate in measuring midshaft clavicle fracture length and shortening. Two dimensional measurements may be used for approximation of clavicular shortening.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35255891
doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05173-4
pii: 10.1186/s12891-022-05173-4
pmc: PMC8903646
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

216

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Surg Radiol Anat. 2006 Oct;28(5):447-56
pubmed: 16943999
J Hum Evol. 2008 May;54(5):663-74
pubmed: 18035397
J Orthop Trauma. 2009 Feb;23(2):106-12
pubmed: 19169102
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;13(5):479-86
pubmed: 15383801
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Mar;28(3):e65-e70
pubmed: 30348543
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 May;80(3):476-84
pubmed: 9619941
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jul;27(7):1251-1257
pubmed: 29706417
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jul-Aug;14(4):349-54
pubmed: 16015232
J Pediatr Orthop. 2013 Apr-May;33(3):e19-22
pubmed: 23482275
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016 Aug;37:141-146
pubmed: 27467816
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1991 Jun;12(2):175-81
pubmed: 1882783
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 Jun;138(6):803-807
pubmed: 29536175
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001;121(4):207-11
pubmed: 11317682
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1968 May-Jun;58:29-42
pubmed: 5666865
Clin Orthop Surg. 2016 Dec;8(4):367-372
pubmed: 27904717
Am J Sports Med. 2010 May;38(5):1000-6
pubmed: 20215578
Am J Sports Med. 2014 May;42(5):1176-81
pubmed: 24573571
Int Orthop. 2014 Dec;38(12):2543-9
pubmed: 25027978
J Am Med Assoc. 1960 Mar 5;172:1006-11
pubmed: 14426324
J Orthop Trauma. 2005 Aug;19(7):504-7
pubmed: 16056089
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Mar;22(3):333-9
pubmed: 22608930
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Mar;21(3):423-9
pubmed: 22063756
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Stat Med. 2008 Feb 28;27(5):778-80
pubmed: 17907247
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Jul;79(4):537-9
pubmed: 9250733
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;11(5):452-6
pubmed: 12378163
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Aug;22(7):458-62
pubmed: 18670285
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Dec 19;18(1):537
pubmed: 29258501
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Mar-Apr;15(2):191-4
pubmed: 16517363
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007 Apr;15(4):239-48
pubmed: 17426295
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jan;88(1):35-40
pubmed: 16391247
Orthopedics. 2013 Mar;36(3):e343-7
pubmed: 23464955
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jan;89(1):1-10
pubmed: 17200303

Auteurs

Mehmet Öztürk (M)

Division of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. mehmedecin@gmail.com.

Emilie Paulin (E)

Department of Radiology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.

Caecilia Charbonnier (C)

Artanim Foundation, Medical Research Department, Geneva, Switzerland.

Elise Dupuis-Lozeron (E)

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.

Nicolas Holzer (N)

Division of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH