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

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1007/s00590-025-04175-x

Christian Blough, Kevin Huang, Samuel Raszka, Sapan Shah, John Garlich, Charles Moon, Geoffrey Marecek

{"title":"Comparison of software-assisted and freehand methods of rotational assessment for diaphyseal tibia fractures.","authors":"Christian Blough, Kevin Huang, Samuel Raszka, Sapan Shah, John Garlich, Charles Moon, Geoffrey Marecek","doi":"10.1007/s00590-025-04175-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Accurate rotational reduction following tibial shaft fracture fixation is absent in up to 36% of cases yet may be critical for lower extremity biomechanics. The objective of this cadaveric study was to compare the results of freehand methods of reduction with software-assisted reduction.Methods: Four fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons attempted rotational correction in a cadaveric model with fluoroscopic assistance (without radiographic visualization of the fracture site) 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 - 0.2° which was not statistically significant. There was no difference in variability between methods. The rate of clinically relevant rotational deformity (> 15°) was 28% using MoC and 31% using SA.Conclusion: Rotational assessment of diaphyseal tibia 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":"59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11772502/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/s00590-025-04175-x","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 tibial shaft fracture fixation is absent in up to 36% of cases yet may be critical for lower extremity biomechanics. The objective of this cadaveric study was to compare the results of freehand methods of reduction with software-assisted reduction.

Methods: Four fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons attempted rotational correction in a cadaveric model with fluoroscopic assistance (without radiographic visualization of the fracture site) 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 - 0.2° which was not statistically significant. There was no difference in variability between methods. The rate of clinically relevant rotational deformity (> 15°) was 28% using MoC and 31% using SA.

Conclusion: Rotational assessment of diaphyseal tibia 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

胫骨二骺骨折旋转评估软件辅助法与徒手法的比较。

目的：在高达36%的病例中，胫骨骨折固定后没有准确的旋转复位，但可能对下肢生物力学至关重要。本尸体研究的目的是比较徒手复位方法和软件辅助复位方法的结果。方法：四名接受过奖学金培训的骨科创伤外科医生尝试在透视辅助下（没有骨折部位的放射影像显示）使用(1)他们的选择方法（MoC）和(2)软件辅助（SA）对尸体模型进行旋转矫正。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- 0.2°，差异无统计学意义。不同方法间的可变性无差异。MoC组临床相关旋转畸形（bbb15°）发生率为28%，SA组为31%。结论：该尸体模型的胫骨骨干骨折旋转评估方法选择与软件增强比较无显著差异。

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.