The influence of 3D printing on inter- and intrarater reliability on the classification of tibial plateau fractures.
10-segment classification
3D printing
AO classification
Diagnostics
Revisited Schatzker classification
Tibial plateau fracture
Journal
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society
ISSN: 1863-9941
Titre abrégé: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101313350
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
accepted:
03
07
2022
pubmed:
9
8
2022
medline:
16
2
2023
entrez:
8
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tibial plateau fractures continue to be a challenging task in clinical practice and current outcomes seem to provide the potential for further improvement. Especially presurgical understanding of the orientation of fracture lines and fracture severity is an essential key to sufficient surgical treatment. The object of this study was to evaluate the reliability of modern axial CT-based classification systems for tibial plateau fractures. In addition, the diagnostic-added value of 3D printing on the classification systems was investigated. 22 raters were asked to classify 22 tibial plateau fractures (11 AO B- and 11 AO C-fractures) with the AO, the 10-Segment and the Revisited Schatzker classification in a three-step evaluation: first only using CT scans, second with 3D volumetric reconstructions and last with 3D-printed fracture models. Inter- and intraobserver agreement and the subjective certainty were analyzed. Statistics were done using kappa values, percentage match and a univariant one-way analysis of variance. The AO classifications interobserver percentage match and kappa values improved for all raters and recorded an overall value of 0.34, respectively, 43% for the 3D print. The 10-Segment classification interobserver agreement also improved with the 3D-printed models and scored an overall kappa value of 0.18 and a percentage match of 79%. Equally the Revisited Schatzker classification increased its values to 0.31 and 35%. The intraobserver agreement showed a moderate agreement for the AO (0.44) and Revisited Schatzker classification (0.42) whereas the 10-Segment classification showed a fair agreement (0.27). Additionally, the raters changed their classification in 36% of the cases after evaluating the fracture with the 3D-printed models and the subjective certainty regarding the decisions improved as categories of self-reliant diagnostic choices were selected 18% (p < 0.05) more often after using the 3D-printed models. Based on the measured outcomes it was concluded that the new classification systems show an overall slight to fair reliability and the use of 3D printing proved to be beneficial for the preoperative diagnostics of tibial plateau fractures. The 10-Segment classification system showed the highest percentage match evaluation of all classification systems demonstrating its high clinical value across all levels of user experience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35941251
doi: 10.1007/s00068-022-02055-1
pii: 10.1007/s00068-022-02055-1
pmc: PMC9925517
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
189-199Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Injury. 2013 Nov;44(11):1561-8
pubmed: 23777749
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Sep;78(5):726-31
pubmed: 8836058
Injury. 2018 Mar;49(3):473-490
pubmed: 29395219
Knee. 2018 Aug;25(4):559-567
pubmed: 29748140
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 8;10(1):6044
pubmed: 32269284
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1974 Nov-Dec;(105):220-39
pubmed: 4609653
Int Orthop. 2010 Apr;34(4):565-70
pubmed: 19440710
Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2019 Jul 10;21(27):14832-14845
pubmed: 31231739
Injury. 2016 Nov;47(11):2551-2557
pubmed: 27616003
Injury. 2010 Feb;41(2):173-8
pubmed: 19744652
Acta Orthop Scand. 1993 Dec;64(6):693-4
pubmed: 8291419
Injury. 2008 Oct;39(10):1216-21
pubmed: 18439607
J Orthop Trauma. 2010 Nov;24(11):683-92
pubmed: 20881634
Unfallchirurg. 2018 Jul;121(7):569-582
pubmed: 29876647
Unfallchirurg. 2019 Jun;122(6):444-451
pubmed: 31053925
Injury. 2011 Dec;42(12):1416-25
pubmed: 21570072
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Dec;45(6):1013-1020
pubmed: 29947848
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Nov-Dec;22(10):673-9
pubmed: 18978541
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 May;139(5):645-650
pubmed: 30715568
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32 Suppl 1:S1-S170
pubmed: 29256945
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984 Jan-Feb;(182):193-9
pubmed: 6546361
Patient Saf Surg. 2020 Jan 07;14:4
pubmed: 31911821
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020 Jan;30(1):109-116
pubmed: 31531739
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Jan 15;96(2):144-50
pubmed: 24430414
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014 Jan-Feb;53(1):47-51
pubmed: 23993039
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Jul;82(5):636-42
pubmed: 10963156
J Orthop Trauma. 2005 Aug;19(7):448-55; discussion 456
pubmed: 16056075
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Dec;46(6):1211-1219
pubmed: 32607776
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988 Aug;70(4):588-90
pubmed: 3403602
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007 May;89(4):400-4
pubmed: 17535620
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Dec;75(12):1743-4
pubmed: 8258542
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;1(5):225-232
pubmed: 28461952
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Knee. 2022 Mar;35:149-156
pubmed: 35313243
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Aug;30(8):437-44
pubmed: 26978133
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Dec;40(12):2845-52
pubmed: 23118120
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Oct;123(8):396-8
pubmed: 14574596
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Dec;75(12):1745-50
pubmed: 8258543
Injury. 2018 Dec;49(12):2252-2263
pubmed: 30526924
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Dec;46(6):1227-1237
pubmed: 33151357