3d打印模型与CT扫描和x射线成像在肱骨近端骨折诊断评估中的应用:一项三盲观察者间可靠性比较研究。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2022-06-13 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/5863813
Gianluca Puglisi, Marco Montemagno, Regina Denaro, Giuseppe Condorelli, Vincenzo Fabrizio Caruso, Andrea Vescio, Gianluca Testa, Vito Pavone
{"title":"3d打印模型与CT扫描和x射线成像在肱骨近端骨折诊断评估中的应用:一项三盲观察者间可靠性比较研究。","authors":"Gianluca Puglisi,&nbsp;Marco Montemagno,&nbsp;Regina Denaro,&nbsp;Giuseppe Condorelli,&nbsp;Vincenzo Fabrizio Caruso,&nbsp;Andrea Vescio,&nbsp;Gianluca Testa,&nbsp;Vito Pavone","doi":"10.1155/2022/5863813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are one of the most frequent fractures in the elderly and are the third most fractures after those of the hip and wrist. PHFs are assessed clinically through conventionally standard imaging (X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans). The present study aims to conduct the diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic efficacy of the 3D-printed models (3DPMs) for the PHFs, compared with the standard imaging.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In terms of fracture classification and surgical indication, PHFs have poor interobserver agreement between orthopedic surgeons using traditional imaging such as X-rays and CT scan. Our objective is to compare interobserver reliability in diagnostic evaluation of PHFs using 3DPMs compared to traditional imaging.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The inclusion criteria were elders aged >65 years, fracture classification AO/OTA 11 B and 11 C, and no pathological fractures or polytrauma. In addition, 9 PHFs were assessed by 6 evaluators through a questionnaire and double-blinded administered for each imaging (X-ray and CT scan) and 3DPMs for each fracture. The questionnaire for each method regarded Neer classification, Hertel classification, treatment indication (IT), and surgical technique (ST). Interobserver reliability was calculated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine patients with PHF were included in the study (66% female). The Neer and Hertel classifications between imaging types had similar ICC values between raters with no statistical differences. IT reliability using CT scan and 3DPMs (ICC = 1; (<i>p</i>=0.116)) assessed better agreement compared with X-rays IT. The ST reliability using 3DPMs (ICC = 0.755; <i>p</i>=0.002) was statistically superior to traditional imaging (ST-RX ICC = -0.004 (<i>p</i>=0.454); ST-CT ICC = 0.429 (<i>p</i>=0.116)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Classification systems like Neer and Hertel offer poor reliability between operators. The 3DPMs for evaluating diagnostics are comparable to CT images but superior to the surgical technique agreement. The application of 3DPMs is effective for preoperative fracture planning and the modeling of patient-specific hardware.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208975/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"3D-Printed Models versus CT Scan and X-Rays Imaging in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Triple-Blind Interobserver Reliability Comparison Study.\",\"authors\":\"Gianluca Puglisi,&nbsp;Marco Montemagno,&nbsp;Regina Denaro,&nbsp;Giuseppe Condorelli,&nbsp;Vincenzo Fabrizio Caruso,&nbsp;Andrea Vescio,&nbsp;Gianluca Testa,&nbsp;Vito Pavone\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/5863813\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are one of the most frequent fractures in the elderly and are the third most fractures after those of the hip and wrist. PHFs are assessed clinically through conventionally standard imaging (X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans). The present study aims to conduct the diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic efficacy of the 3D-printed models (3DPMs) for the PHFs, compared with the standard imaging.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In terms of fracture classification and surgical indication, PHFs have poor interobserver agreement between orthopedic surgeons using traditional imaging such as X-rays and CT scan. Our objective is to compare interobserver reliability in diagnostic evaluation of PHFs using 3DPMs compared to traditional imaging.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The inclusion criteria were elders aged >65 years, fracture classification AO/OTA 11 B and 11 C, and no pathological fractures or polytrauma. In addition, 9 PHFs were assessed by 6 evaluators through a questionnaire and double-blinded administered for each imaging (X-ray and CT scan) and 3DPMs for each fracture. The questionnaire for each method regarded Neer classification, Hertel classification, treatment indication (IT), and surgical technique (ST). Interobserver reliability was calculated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine patients with PHF were included in the study (66% female). The Neer and Hertel classifications between imaging types had similar ICC values between raters with no statistical differences. IT reliability using CT scan and 3DPMs (ICC = 1; (<i>p</i>=0.116)) assessed better agreement compared with X-rays IT. The ST reliability using 3DPMs (ICC = 0.755; <i>p</i>=0.002) was statistically superior to traditional imaging (ST-RX ICC = -0.004 (<i>p</i>=0.454); ST-CT ICC = 0.429 (<i>p</i>=0.116)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Classification systems like Neer and Hertel offer poor reliability between operators. The 3DPMs for evaluating diagnostics are comparable to CT images but superior to the surgical technique agreement. The application of 3DPMs is effective for preoperative fracture planning and the modeling of patient-specific hardware.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208975/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5863813\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5863813","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:肱骨近端骨折(PHFs)是老年人最常见的骨折之一,是继髋部和腕部骨折之后的第三大骨折。phf通过常规标准成像(x射线和计算机断层扫描(CT))进行临床评估。本研究旨在对3d打印模型(3dms)对PHFs的诊断和治疗效果进行评估,并与标准成像进行比较。目的:在骨折分型和手术指征方面,骨科医生使用传统影像学(如x射线和CT扫描)对phf的观察间一致性较差。我们的目的是比较使用3d dpm与传统成像在phf诊断评估中的观察者间可靠性。方法:纳入标准为年龄>65岁,骨折分类AO/OTA 11b和11c,无病理性骨折或多发伤。此外,6名评估人员通过问卷和双盲方法对9个phf进行评估,并对每个骨折的每张图像(x射线和CT扫描)和3dpm进行评估。每种方法的问卷调查包括Neer分类、Hertel分类、治疗指征(IT)和手术技术(ST)。通过类内相关系数(ICC)计算观察者间信度。结果:9例PHF患者纳入研究,其中66%为女性。成像类型之间的Neer和Hertel分类在评分者之间具有相似的ICC值,无统计学差异。CT扫描和3d dpm的IT可靠性(ICC = 1;(p=0.116))评估的一致性比x射线更好。采用3dpm的ST信度(ICC = 0.755;p=0.002)优于传统影像学(ST-RX ICC = -0.004 (p=0.454);ST-CT ICC = 0.429 (p=0.116))。结论:Neer和Hertel等分类系统在操作者之间的可靠性较差。用于评估诊断的3dpm与CT图像相当,但优于手术技术协议。3d dpm的应用对术前骨折规划和患者特定硬件的建模是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

3D-Printed Models versus CT Scan and X-Rays Imaging in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Triple-Blind Interobserver Reliability Comparison Study.

3D-Printed Models versus CT Scan and X-Rays Imaging in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Triple-Blind Interobserver Reliability Comparison Study.

3D-Printed Models versus CT Scan and X-Rays Imaging in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Triple-Blind Interobserver Reliability Comparison Study.

3D-Printed Models versus CT Scan and X-Rays Imaging in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Triple-Blind Interobserver Reliability Comparison Study.

Background: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are one of the most frequent fractures in the elderly and are the third most fractures after those of the hip and wrist. PHFs are assessed clinically through conventionally standard imaging (X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans). The present study aims to conduct the diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic efficacy of the 3D-printed models (3DPMs) for the PHFs, compared with the standard imaging.

Objectives: In terms of fracture classification and surgical indication, PHFs have poor interobserver agreement between orthopedic surgeons using traditional imaging such as X-rays and CT scan. Our objective is to compare interobserver reliability in diagnostic evaluation of PHFs using 3DPMs compared to traditional imaging.

Methods: The inclusion criteria were elders aged >65 years, fracture classification AO/OTA 11 B and 11 C, and no pathological fractures or polytrauma. In addition, 9 PHFs were assessed by 6 evaluators through a questionnaire and double-blinded administered for each imaging (X-ray and CT scan) and 3DPMs for each fracture. The questionnaire for each method regarded Neer classification, Hertel classification, treatment indication (IT), and surgical technique (ST). Interobserver reliability was calculated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: Nine patients with PHF were included in the study (66% female). The Neer and Hertel classifications between imaging types had similar ICC values between raters with no statistical differences. IT reliability using CT scan and 3DPMs (ICC = 1; (p=0.116)) assessed better agreement compared with X-rays IT. The ST reliability using 3DPMs (ICC = 0.755; p=0.002) was statistically superior to traditional imaging (ST-RX ICC = -0.004 (p=0.454); ST-CT ICC = 0.429 (p=0.116)).

Conclusion: Classification systems like Neer and Hertel offer poor reliability between operators. The 3DPMs for evaluating diagnostics are comparable to CT images but superior to the surgical technique agreement. The application of 3DPMs is effective for preoperative fracture planning and the modeling of patient-specific hardware.

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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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