评估评估股骨旋转的术中透视技术:尸体研究

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
David V Ivanov, John P Welby, Ankur Khanna, Jonathan D Barlow, S Andrew Sems, Michael E Torchia, Brandon J Yuan
{"title":"评估评估股骨旋转的术中透视技术:尸体研究","authors":"David V Ivanov, John P Welby, Ankur Khanna, Jonathan D Barlow, S Andrew Sems, Michael E Torchia, Brandon J Yuan","doi":"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare three fluoroscopic methods for determining femoral rotation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Native femoral version was measured by computed tomography in 20 intact femurs from 10 cadaveric specimens. Two Steinmann pins were placed into each left femur above and below a planned transverse osteotomy which was completed through the diaphysis. Four surgeons utilized the true lateral (TL), neck-horizontal angle (NH), and lesser trochanter profile (LTP) techniques to correct the injured femur's rotation using the intact right femur as reference, yielding 120 measurements. Accuracy was assessed by comparing the angle subtended by the two Steinmann pins before and after manipulation and comparing against version measurements of the right femur.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Absolute mean rotational error in the fractured femur compared to its uninjured state was 6.0° (95% CI, 4.6-7.5), 6.6° (95% CI, 5.0-8.2), and 8.5° (95% CI, 6.5-10.6) for the TL, NH, and LTP techniques, respectively, without significant difference between techniques ( p = 0.100). Compared to the right femur, absolute mean rotational error was 6.6° (95% CI, 1.0-12.2), 6.4° (95% CI, 0.1-12.6), and 8.9° (95% CI, 0.8-17.0) for the TL, NH, and LTP techniques, respectively, without significant difference ( p = 0.180). Significantly more femurs were malrotated by >15° using the LTP method compared to the TL and NH methods (20.0% vs 2.5% and 5.0%, p = 0.030). Absolute mean error in estimating femoral rotation of the intact femur using the TL and NH methods compared to CT was 6.6° (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1-8.2) and 4.4° (95% CI, 3.4-5.4), respectively, with significant difference between the two methods ( p = 0.020).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The true lateral (TL), neck-horizontal angle (NH), and the lesser trochanter profile (LTP) techniques performed similarly in correcting rotation of the fractured femur, but significantly more femurs were malrotated by >15° using the LTP technique. This supports preferential use of the TL or NH methods for determining femoral version intraoperatively.</p>","PeriodicalId":16644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Techniques to Estimate Femoral Rotation: A Cadaveric Study.\",\"authors\":\"David V Ivanov, John P Welby, Ankur Khanna, Jonathan D Barlow, S Andrew Sems, Michael E Torchia, Brandon J Yuan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002790\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare three fluoroscopic methods for determining femoral rotation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Native femoral version was measured by computed tomography in 20 intact femurs from 10 cadaveric specimens. Two Steinmann pins were placed into each left femur above and below a planned transverse osteotomy which was completed through the diaphysis. Four surgeons utilized the true lateral (TL), neck-horizontal angle (NH), and lesser trochanter profile (LTP) techniques to correct the injured femur's rotation using the intact right femur as reference, yielding 120 measurements. Accuracy was assessed by comparing the angle subtended by the two Steinmann pins before and after manipulation and comparing against version measurements of the right femur.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Absolute mean rotational error in the fractured femur compared to its uninjured state was 6.0° (95% CI, 4.6-7.5), 6.6° (95% CI, 5.0-8.2), and 8.5° (95% CI, 6.5-10.6) for the TL, NH, and LTP techniques, respectively, without significant difference between techniques ( p = 0.100). Compared to the right femur, absolute mean rotational error was 6.6° (95% CI, 1.0-12.2), 6.4° (95% CI, 0.1-12.6), and 8.9° (95% CI, 0.8-17.0) for the TL, NH, and LTP techniques, respectively, without significant difference ( p = 0.180). Significantly more femurs were malrotated by >15° using the LTP method compared to the TL and NH methods (20.0% vs 2.5% and 5.0%, p = 0.030). Absolute mean error in estimating femoral rotation of the intact femur using the TL and NH methods compared to CT was 6.6° (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1-8.2) and 4.4° (95% CI, 3.4-5.4), respectively, with significant difference between the two methods ( p = 0.020).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The true lateral (TL), neck-horizontal angle (NH), and the lesser trochanter profile (LTP) techniques performed similarly in correcting rotation of the fractured femur, but significantly more femurs were malrotated by >15° using the LTP technique. This supports preferential use of the TL or NH methods for determining femoral version intraoperatively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002790\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002790","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的: 比较确定股骨旋转的三种透视方法:比较确定股骨旋转的三种透视方法:通过计算机断层扫描测量了来自 10 具尸体标本的 20 个完整股骨的原生股骨角度。在计划进行的横向截骨手术的上方和下方,每根左侧股骨中都放置了两根 Steinmann 针,截骨手术通过骨骺完成。四名外科医生使用真外侧(TL)、颈水平角(NH)和小转子轮廓(LTP)技术,以完好的右股骨为参照,矫正受伤股骨的旋转,共进行了120次测量。通过比较两个 Steinmann 销钉在操作前和操作后所占的角度,并与右股骨的版本测量值进行比较,对准确性进行评估:TL、NH和LTP技术与未受伤状态相比,骨折股骨的绝对平均旋转误差分别为6.0°(95% CI,4.6-7.5)、6.6°(95% CI,5.0-8.2)和8.5°(95% CI,6.5-10.6),不同技术之间无显著差异(P=0.100)。与右股骨相比,TL、NH和LTP技术的绝对平均旋转误差分别为6.6°(95% CI,1.0-12.2)、6.4°(95% CI,0.1-12.6)和8.9°(95% CI,0.8-17.0),无明显差异(p=0.180)。与TL和NH方法相比,LTP方法中股骨旋转不良>15°的比例明显更高(20.0% vs 2.5%和5.0%,p=0.030)。与CT相比,使用TL和NH方法估计完整股骨的股骨旋转的绝对平均误差分别为6.6°(95%置信区间[CI],5.1-8.2)和4.4°(95% CI,3.4-5.4),两种方法之间存在显著差异(P=0.020):结论:在矫正股骨骨折旋转方面,真外侧(TL)、颈水平角(NH)和小转子外形(LTP)技术表现相似,但使用LTP技术时,股骨旋转不良>15°的情况明显增多。这支持在术中优先使用TL或NH方法来确定股骨转位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Techniques to Estimate Femoral Rotation: A Cadaveric Study.

Objectives: To compare three fluoroscopic methods for determining femoral rotation.

Methods: Native femoral version was measured by computed tomography in 20 intact femurs from 10 cadaveric specimens. Two Steinmann pins were placed into each left femur above and below a planned transverse osteotomy which was completed through the diaphysis. Four surgeons utilized the true lateral (TL), neck-horizontal angle (NH), and lesser trochanter profile (LTP) techniques to correct the injured femur's rotation using the intact right femur as reference, yielding 120 measurements. Accuracy was assessed by comparing the angle subtended by the two Steinmann pins before and after manipulation and comparing against version measurements of the right femur.

Results: Absolute mean rotational error in the fractured femur compared to its uninjured state was 6.0° (95% CI, 4.6-7.5), 6.6° (95% CI, 5.0-8.2), and 8.5° (95% CI, 6.5-10.6) for the TL, NH, and LTP techniques, respectively, without significant difference between techniques ( p = 0.100). Compared to the right femur, absolute mean rotational error was 6.6° (95% CI, 1.0-12.2), 6.4° (95% CI, 0.1-12.6), and 8.9° (95% CI, 0.8-17.0) for the TL, NH, and LTP techniques, respectively, without significant difference ( p = 0.180). Significantly more femurs were malrotated by >15° using the LTP method compared to the TL and NH methods (20.0% vs 2.5% and 5.0%, p = 0.030). Absolute mean error in estimating femoral rotation of the intact femur using the TL and NH methods compared to CT was 6.6° (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1-8.2) and 4.4° (95% CI, 3.4-5.4), respectively, with significant difference between the two methods ( p = 0.020).

Conclusions: The true lateral (TL), neck-horizontal angle (NH), and the lesser trochanter profile (LTP) techniques performed similarly in correcting rotation of the fractured femur, but significantly more femurs were malrotated by >15° using the LTP technique. This supports preferential use of the TL or NH methods for determining femoral version intraoperatively.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and management of hard and soft tissue trauma, including injuries to bone, muscle, ligament, and tendons, as well as spinal cord injuries. Under the guidance of a distinguished international board of editors, the journal provides the most current information on diagnostic techniques, new and improved surgical instruments and procedures, surgical implants and prosthetic devices, bioplastics and biometals; and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信