Evaluation of the superior pubic ramus and supra acetabular corridors using statistical shape modelling.
Anatomical variation
Fracture
Pelvis
Principal component analysis
Statistical shape modeling
Journal
Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA
ISSN: 1279-8517
Titre abrégé: Surg Radiol Anat
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8608029
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Jun 2024
28 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
11
01
2024
accepted:
14
06
2024
medline:
29
6
2024
pubmed:
29
6
2024
entrez:
28
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The incidence of osteoporotic pelvic fractures is increasing. The broken anterior pelvic ring is preferentially fixed with long intramedullary screws, which require a good understanding of the patient-specific anatomy to prevent joint perforation. The aim of this study was to assess the variability of the superior pubic ramus and the supra acetabular corridors' length and width using statistical shape modelling. A male and female statistical shape model was made based on 59 forensic CT scans. For the superior pubic ramus and the supra acetabular corridor the longest and widest completely fitting cylinder was created for the first 5 principal components (PC) of both models, male and female pelvises separately. A total of 59 pelvises were included in this study of which 36 male and 23 female. The first 5 principal components explained 75% and 79% of the pelvic variation in males and females, respectively. Within 3 PCs of the female statistical shape model (SSM) a superior pubic ramus corridor of < 7.3 mm was found, 5.5 mm being the narrowest linear corridor measured. Both corridors in all PCs of the male SSM measured > 7.3 mm. Within females a 7.3 mm and 6.5 mm screw won't always fit in the superior pubic ramus corridor, especially if a flat sacrum, a small pelvis or a wide subpubic angle are present. The supra acetabular corridor did not seem to have sex-specific differences. In the supra-acetabular corridor there was always enough space to accommodate a 7.3 mm screw, both in males and females.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38942934
doi: 10.1007/s00276-024-03420-y
pii: 10.1007/s00276-024-03420-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Altınayak H, Balta O (2023) Is percutaneous fixation of the superior pubic ramus possible in all types of pelvis? Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 29:419–429. https://doi.org/10.14744/TJTES.2023.54545
doi: 10.14744/TJTES.2023.54545
pubmed: 36880631
pmcid: 10225830
Amberg B, Romdhani S, Vetter T (2007) Optimal Step Nonrigid ICP Algorithms for Surface Registration. In: 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, pp 1–8
Arand C, Wagner D, Richards RG et al (2019) 3D statistical model of the pelvic ring - a CT-based statistical evaluation of anatomical variation. J Anat 234:376–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOA.12928
doi: 10.1111/JOA.12928
pubmed: 30575034
Arand C, Wagner D, Richards RG et al (2021) Anatomical evaluation of the transpubic screw corridor based on a 3D statistical model of the pelvic ring. Sci Rep 11(1):16677. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-021-96219-5
doi: 10.1038/S41598-021-96219-5
pubmed: 34404906
pmcid: 8371146
Boulay C, Tardieu C, Bénaim C et al (2006) Three-dimensional study of pelvic asymmetry on anatomical specimens and its clinical perspectives. J Anat 208:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1469-7580.2006.00513.X
doi: 10.1111/J.1469-7580.2006.00513.X
pubmed: 16420376
pmcid: 2100175
Buller LT, Best MJ, Quinnan SM (2016) A Nationwide Analysis of Pelvic Ring fractures: incidence and Trends in treatment, length of Stay, and Mortality. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 7:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2151458515616250
doi: 10.1177/2151458515616250
pubmed: 26929851
pmcid: 4748159
Chen KN, Wang G, Cao LG, Zhang MC (2009) Differences of percutaneous retrograde screw fixation of anterior column acetabular fractures between male and female: a study of 164 virtual three-dimensional models. Injury 40:1067–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INJURY.2009.01.014
doi: 10.1016/J.INJURY.2009.01.014
pubmed: 19329113
Comadoll SM, Matuszewski PE, Liu B et al (2021) Factors Associated with failure of Superior Pubic Ramus screws. J Orthop Trauma 35:181–186. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001973
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001973
pubmed: 33727521
Cox SL (2021) A geometric morphometric assessment of shape variation in adult pelvic morphology. Am J Phys Anthropol 176:652–671. https://doi.org/10.1002/AJPA.24399
doi: 10.1002/AJPA.24399
pubmed: 34528241
Guo J, Dong W, Zhang Z et al (2022) An exploratory study of pelvis anatomy to revise the bony canal used for LC2 screw insertion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23(1):293. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12891-022-05256-2
doi: 10.1186/S12891-022-05256-2
pubmed: 35346155
pmcid: 8961888
Handrich K, Kamer L, Mayo K et al (2021) Asymmetry of the pelvic ring evaluated by CT-based 3D statistical modeling. J Anat 238:1225–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOA.13379
doi: 10.1111/JOA.13379
pubmed: 33382451
Herteleer M, Dejaeger M, Nijs S et al (2021) Epidemiology and secular trends of pelvic fractures in Belgium: a retrospective, population-based, nationwide observational study. Bone 153:116141. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BONE.2021.116141
doi: 10.1016/J.BONE.2021.116141
pubmed: 34365026
Jarragh A, Lari A, Shaikh M (2023) A computed tomography (CT) based morphometric study of superior pubic ramus anatomy among arabs to determine safe intramedullary pubic rami screw insertion. Surg Radiol Anat 45:603–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00276-023-03128-5
doi: 10.1007/S00276-023-03128-5
pubmed: 36964777
Kurki HK (2013) Bony pelvic canal size and shape in relation to body proportionality in humans. Am J Phys Anthropol 151:88–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/AJPA.22243
doi: 10.1002/AJPA.22243
pubmed: 23504988
Müller F, Füchtmeier B (2021) A systematic review of the transiliac internal fixator (TIFI) for posterior pelvic injuries. SICOT J 7:40. https://doi.org/10.1051/SICOTJ/2021037
doi: 10.1051/SICOTJ/2021037
pubmed: 34309508
pmcid: 8312281
Puchwein P, Enninghorst N, Sisak K et al (2012) Percutaneous fixation of acetabular fractures: computer-assisted determination of safe zones, angles and lengths for screw insertion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:805–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00402-012-1486-7
doi: 10.1007/S00402-012-1486-7
pubmed: 22358222
Rommens PM, Graafen M, Arand C et al (2020) Minimal-invasive stabilization of anterior pelvic ring fractures with retrograde transpubic screws. Injury 51:340–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INJURY.2019.12.018
doi: 10.1016/J.INJURY.2019.12.018
pubmed: 31879175
Routt MLC, Simonian PT, Grujic L (1995) The retrograde medullary superior pubic ramus screw for the treatment of anterior pelvic ring disruptions: a new technique. J Orthop Trauma 9:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199502000-00006
doi: 10.1097/00005131-199502000-00006
pubmed: 7714652
Rüwald J, Ploeger MM, Hischebeth GT et al (2023) Description of standardized Planes and angles for Percutaneous Supra-Acetabular Screw Placement. https://doi.org/10.1055/A-2107-0948 . Z Orthop Unfall
Starr AJ, Nakatani T, Reinert CM, Cederberg K (2008) Superior pubic ramus fractures fixed with percutaneous screws: what predicts fixation failure? J Orthop Trauma 22:81–87. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0B013E318162AB6E
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0B013E318162AB6E
pubmed: 18349774
van Veldhuizen WA, van der Wel H, Kuipers HY et al (2023) Development of a statistical shape Model and Assessment of anatomical shape variations in the Hemipelvis. J Clin Med 12:12. https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM12113767/S1
doi: 10.3390/JCM12113767/S1
Vancleef S, Carette Y, Vanhove H et al (2020) Combined manual and automatic landmark detection for enhanced surface registration of anatomical structures: an extensive parameter study for femur and clavicle. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng Imaging Vis 8:94–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681163.2019.1590245
doi: 10.1080/21681163.2019.1590245
Vanderschot P, Meuleman C, Lefèvre A, Broos P (2001) Trans iliac-sacral-iliac bar stabilisation to treat bilateral lesions of the sacro-iliac joint or sacrum: anatomical considerations and clinical experience. Injury 32:587–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(01)00039-0
doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(01)00039-0
pubmed: 11524094
Wang M, Jacobs RC, Bartlett CS, Schottel PC (2022) Supraacetabular osseous corridor: defining dimensions, sex differences, and alternatives. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142:1429–1434. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00402-021-03786-3
doi: 10.1007/S00402-021-03786-3
pubmed: 33507379