Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2014
Use of three-dimensional fluoroscopy to determine intra-articular screw penetration in proximal humeral fracture model.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weil Yoram A, Beyth Shaul, Abu-Ahmad Asala, Khoury Amal, Liebergall Meir, Safran Ori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Proximal humeral locking plates have significantly improved the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in recent years; however, they are not devoid of complications. Inadvertent screw penetration into the joint is a well-documented complication. Intraoperative 3-dimensional (3D) imaging may assist in detecting intra-articular implant penetration. This study compared the performance of a standard C-arm fluoroscope with a novel 3D imaging fluoroscope in detecting penetrating implants in a proximal humeral fracture model.
METHODS: Zinc-sprayed proximal humerus sawbones were affixed with a proximal humeral locking plate. Six different constructs were assembled. In each specimen, 1 screw, 2 screws, or no screws were inserted 2-mm proud of the articular surface. Each specimen was imaged with a conventional fluoroscope and a 3D imaging fluoroscope. Overall, 36 image sets were prepared for each modality. These were evaluated by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons for intraobserver and interobserver reliability as well for the accuracy of detecting prominent implants in the 2 imaging methods.
RESULTS: Overall accuracy for observer A was 89.9% compared with 100% for C-arm fluoroscopy and 3D imaging fluoroscopy (P < .01) and for observer B was 91.1% and 100% (P = .01), respectively. The κ values were 0.74 with C-arm fluoroscopy and 1.0 for the 3D imaging fluoroscopy for observer A, and 0.93 and 1.0, respectively, for observer B.
CONCLUSIONS: In a proximal humeral fracture model, C-arm fluoroscopy is a highly accurate imaging modality that can minimize the incidence of penetrating screws into the joint. Further clinical studies are required to establish this modality.
METHODS: Zinc-sprayed proximal humerus sawbones were affixed with a proximal humeral locking plate. Six different constructs were assembled. In each specimen, 1 screw, 2 screws, or no screws were inserted 2-mm proud of the articular surface. Each specimen was imaged with a conventional fluoroscope and a 3D imaging fluoroscope. Overall, 36 image sets were prepared for each modality. These were evaluated by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons for intraobserver and interobserver reliability as well for the accuracy of detecting prominent implants in the 2 imaging methods.
RESULTS: Overall accuracy for observer A was 89.9% compared with 100% for C-arm fluoroscopy and 3D imaging fluoroscopy (P < .01) and for observer B was 91.1% and 100% (P = .01), respectively. The κ values were 0.74 with C-arm fluoroscopy and 1.0 for the 3D imaging fluoroscopy for observer A, and 0.93 and 1.0, respectively, for observer B.
CONCLUSIONS: In a proximal humeral fracture model, C-arm fluoroscopy is a highly accurate imaging modality that can minimize the incidence of penetrating screws into the joint. Further clinical studies are required to establish this modality.