Assessment of the measurement methods in midshaft clavicle fracture.
Bone fractures
Clavicle
Methods
Radiography
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Nov 2022
18 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
06
09
2021
accepted:
07
11
2022
entrez:
19
11
2022
pubmed:
20
11
2022
medline:
23
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clavicle fractures account for approximately 5% of all fractures in adults and 75% of clavicle fractures occur in the midshaft. Shortening greater than two centimeters is an indicative of surgical treatment. Radiographic exams are often used to diagnose and evaluate clavicle fractures but computed tomography (CT) scan is currently considered the best method to assess these deformities and shortening. 1- To investigate whether different methods of performing the radiographic exam interfere on the measurement of the fractured clavicle length. 2- Compare the clavicle length measurements obtained by the different radiographic exam methods with the CT scan measurements, used as a reference. Twenty-five patients with acute (< 3 weeks) midshaft clavicle fracture were evaluated. Patients underwent six radiographic images: PA Thorax (standing and lying), AP Thorax (standing and lying) and at 10° cephalic tilt (standing and lying), and the computed tomography was used as reference. The mean length (cm) obtained were: 14,930 on CT scan, 14,860 on PA Thorax Standing, 14,955 on PA Thorax Lying, 14,896 on AP Thorax Standing, 14,960 AP Thorax Lying, 15,098 on 10° cephalic tilt Standing and 15,001 on 10° cephalic tilt Lying, (p > 0,05). 1- There is no significant statistical difference in the clavicle fracture length measurement among the variety of radiographic exam performances. 2- The method that comes closest to computed tomography results is the PA thorax incidence, with the patient in the lying position.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Clavicle fractures account for approximately 5% of all fractures in adults and 75% of clavicle fractures occur in the midshaft. Shortening greater than two centimeters is an indicative of surgical treatment. Radiographic exams are often used to diagnose and evaluate clavicle fractures but computed tomography (CT) scan is currently considered the best method to assess these deformities and shortening.
GOAL
OBJECTIVE
1- To investigate whether different methods of performing the radiographic exam interfere on the measurement of the fractured clavicle length. 2- Compare the clavicle length measurements obtained by the different radiographic exam methods with the CT scan measurements, used as a reference.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-five patients with acute (< 3 weeks) midshaft clavicle fracture were evaluated. Patients underwent six radiographic images: PA Thorax (standing and lying), AP Thorax (standing and lying) and at 10° cephalic tilt (standing and lying), and the computed tomography was used as reference.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean length (cm) obtained were: 14,930 on CT scan, 14,860 on PA Thorax Standing, 14,955 on PA Thorax Lying, 14,896 on AP Thorax Standing, 14,960 AP Thorax Lying, 15,098 on 10° cephalic tilt Standing and 15,001 on 10° cephalic tilt Lying, (p > 0,05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
1- There is no significant statistical difference in the clavicle fracture length measurement among the variety of radiographic exam performances. 2- The method that comes closest to computed tomography results is the PA thorax incidence, with the patient in the lying position.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36401258
doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05961-y
pii: 10.1186/s12891-022-05961-y
pmc: PMC9673337
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
992Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Orthop. 2019 Sep 11;18:80-85
pubmed: 32189889
Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1971 Jul;112(3):493-506
pubmed: 5570359
Radiographics. 2015 Oct;35(6):1706-21
pubmed: 26466180
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 May;80(3):476-84
pubmed: 9619941
Can J Surg. 2016 Sep;59(5):311-6
pubmed: 27438054
J Orthop Trauma. 2005 Aug;19(7):504-7
pubmed: 16056089
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Apr 18;94(8):675-84
pubmed: 22419410
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Mar;90 Suppl 2 Pt 1:1-8
pubmed: 18310682
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Jul;79(4):537-9
pubmed: 9250733
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014 Jan;24(1):37-42
pubmed: 23412255
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2016 Aug;29:74-80
pubmed: 26371869
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001;121(4):207-11
pubmed: 11317682
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1968 May-Jun;58:29-42
pubmed: 5666865
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Oct;21(10):1263-8
pubmed: 22098796
Clin Orthop Surg. 2016 Dec;8(4):367-372
pubmed: 27904717
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Oct;28(10):1877-1885
pubmed: 31272891
Clin Anat. 2010 Mar;23(2):199-209
pubmed: 20069642
Am J Sports Med. 2014 May;42(5):1176-81
pubmed: 24573571
J Am Med Assoc. 1960 Mar 5;172:1006-11
pubmed: 14426324
Int Orthop. 2010 Jun;34(5):731-6
pubmed: 19669643
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Apr;27(4):667-673
pubmed: 29555052
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;11(5):452-6
pubmed: 12378163
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Aug;22(7):458-62
pubmed: 18670285
Bone Joint J. 2015 Nov;97-B(11):1562-5
pubmed: 26530661
BMC Res Notes. 2011 Sep 08;4:333
pubmed: 21899777
J Orthop Trauma. 2014 Nov;28(11):636-41
pubmed: 24740113
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Dec 19;18(1):537
pubmed: 29258501
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Sep;93(9):1247-52
pubmed: 21911537
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Mar-Apr;15(2):191-4
pubmed: 16517363
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jan;88(1):35-40
pubmed: 16391247
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013 Apr;21(4):199-200
pubmed: 23545723
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (1978). 1986;105(6):337-8
pubmed: 3813845