Comparison of software-assisted and freehand methods of rotational assessment for diaphyseal femur fractures.

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Pub Date : 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1007/s00590-024-04121-3

Christian Blough, Kevin Huang, John Garlich, Milton Little, Charles Moon, Geoffrey Marecek

{"title":"Comparison of software-assisted and freehand methods of rotational assessment for diaphyseal femur fractures.","authors":"Christian Blough, Kevin Huang, John Garlich, Milton Little, Charles Moon, Geoffrey Marecek","doi":"10.1007/s00590-024-04121-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Accurate rotational reduction following femoral shaft fracture fixation is absent in up to 28% of cases yet is critical for lower extremity biomechanics. The objective of this cadaveric study was to compare the results of freehand methods of rotational reduction with software-assisted rotational reduction.Methods: Four fellowship-trained orthopedic trauma surgeons attempted rotational correction in a cadaveric model with fluoroscopic assistance using (1) their method of choice (MoC) and (2) software assistance (SA). After correction, deviation from baseline rotation was calculated.Results: The mean difference between the two methods (MoC-SA) was 1.1 which was not significant when comparing all raters and between raters individually. SA had significantly less variability compared to MoC. The rate of clinically relevant rotational deformity (> 15°) was 28% using MoC and 11% using SA.Conclusion: Rotational assessment of diaphyseal femur fractures in this cadaveric model was not significantly different when compared between method of choice and software augmentation.","PeriodicalId":50484,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","volume":"35 1","pages":"43"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11663147/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-04121-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Accurate rotational reduction following femoral shaft fracture fixation is absent in up to 28% of cases yet is critical for lower extremity biomechanics. The objective of this cadaveric study was to compare the results of freehand methods of rotational reduction with software-assisted rotational reduction.

Methods: Four fellowship-trained orthopedic trauma surgeons attempted rotational correction in a cadaveric model with fluoroscopic assistance using (1) their method of choice (MoC) and (2) software assistance (SA). After correction, deviation from baseline rotation was calculated.

Results: The mean difference between the two methods (MoC-SA) was 1.1 which was not significant when comparing all raters and between raters individually. SA had significantly less variability compared to MoC. The rate of clinically relevant rotational deformity (> 15°) was 28% using MoC and 11% using SA.

Conclusion: Rotational assessment of diaphyseal femur fractures in this cadaveric model was not significantly different when compared between method of choice and software augmentation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

软件辅助与徒手方法对骨干股骨骨折旋转评估的比较。

目的：股骨骨干骨折固定后准确的旋转复位在高达28%的病例中是缺失的，但这对下肢生物力学至关重要。本尸体研究的目的是比较徒手旋转复位方法和软件辅助旋转复位方法的结果。方法：四名受过奖学金培训的骨科创伤外科医生尝试在透视辅助下对尸体模型进行旋转矫正，使用(1)他们的选择方法（MoC）和(2)软件辅助（SA）。校正后计算与基线旋转的偏差。结果：两种方法（MoC-SA）的平均差异为1.1，在所有评分者和评分者之间比较均无统计学意义。与MoC相比，SA的可变性明显更小。MoC组临床相关旋转畸形（bbb15°）发生率为28%，SA组为11%。结论：在该尸体模型中，股骨骨干骨折旋转评估的方法选择与软件增强相比无显著差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 医学-整形外科

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

5.90%

发文量

265

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (EJOST) aims to publish high quality Orthopedic scientific work. The objective of our journal is to disseminate meaningful, impactful, clinically relevant work from each and every region of the world, that has the potential to change and or inform clinical practice.