Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Is the Additional Effort for an Intraoperative CT Scan Justified for Distal Radius Fracture Fixations? A Comparative Clinical Feasibility Study


Halvachizadeh, Sascha; Berk, Till; Pieringer, Alexander; Ried, Emanuael; Hess, Florian; Pfeifer, Roman; Pape, Hans-Christoph; Allemann, Florin (2020). Is the Additional Effort for an Intraoperative CT Scan Justified for Distal Radius Fracture Fixations? A Comparative Clinical Feasibility Study. Journal of clinical medicine, 9:E2254..

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

It is currently unclear whether the additional effort to perform an intraoperative computed tomography (CT) scan is justified for articular distal radius fractures (DRFs). The purpose of this study was to assess radiological, functional, and clinical outcomes after surgical treatment of distal radius fractures when using conventional fluoroscopy vs. intraoperative CT scans.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria: Surgical treatment of DRF between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011, age 18 and above. Group distribution: intraoperative conventional fluoroscopy (Group Conv) or intraoperative CT scans (Group CT).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Use of different image intensifier devices or incomplete data. DRF classification according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification. Outcome variables included requirement of revision surgeries, duration of surgery, absorbed radiation dose, and requirement of additional CT scans during hospitalization.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients were included (Group Conv n = 96 (51.3%), Group CT n = 91 (48.7%)). AO Classification: Type A fractures n = 40 (50%) in Group Conv vs. n = 16 (17.6%) in Group CT, p < 0.001; Type B: 10 (10.4%) vs. 11 (12.1%), not significant (n.s.); Type C: 38 (39.6%) vs. 64 (70.3%), p < 0.001. In Group Conv, four (4.2%) patients required revision surgeries within 6 months, but in Group CT no revision surgery was required. The CT scan led to an intraoperative screw exchange/reposition in 23 (25.3%) cases. The duration of the initial surgery (81.7 ± 46.4 min vs. 90.1 ± 43.6 min, n.s.) was comparable. The radiation dose was significantly higher in Group CT (6.9 ± 1.3 vs. 2.8 ± 7.8 mGy, p < 0.001). In Group Conv, 11 (11.5%) patients required additional CT scans during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

The usage of intraoperative CT was associated with improved reduction and more adequate positioning of screws postoperatively with comparable durations of surgery. Despite increased efforts by utilizing the intraoperative CT scan, the decrease in reoperations may justify its use.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

It is currently unclear whether the additional effort to perform an intraoperative computed tomography (CT) scan is justified for articular distal radius fractures (DRFs). The purpose of this study was to assess radiological, functional, and clinical outcomes after surgical treatment of distal radius fractures when using conventional fluoroscopy vs. intraoperative CT scans.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria: Surgical treatment of DRF between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011, age 18 and above. Group distribution: intraoperative conventional fluoroscopy (Group Conv) or intraoperative CT scans (Group CT).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Use of different image intensifier devices or incomplete data. DRF classification according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification. Outcome variables included requirement of revision surgeries, duration of surgery, absorbed radiation dose, and requirement of additional CT scans during hospitalization.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients were included (Group Conv n = 96 (51.3%), Group CT n = 91 (48.7%)). AO Classification: Type A fractures n = 40 (50%) in Group Conv vs. n = 16 (17.6%) in Group CT, p < 0.001; Type B: 10 (10.4%) vs. 11 (12.1%), not significant (n.s.); Type C: 38 (39.6%) vs. 64 (70.3%), p < 0.001. In Group Conv, four (4.2%) patients required revision surgeries within 6 months, but in Group CT no revision surgery was required. The CT scan led to an intraoperative screw exchange/reposition in 23 (25.3%) cases. The duration of the initial surgery (81.7 ± 46.4 min vs. 90.1 ± 43.6 min, n.s.) was comparable. The radiation dose was significantly higher in Group CT (6.9 ± 1.3 vs. 2.8 ± 7.8 mGy, p < 0.001). In Group Conv, 11 (11.5%) patients required additional CT scans during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

The usage of intraoperative CT was associated with improved reduction and more adequate positioning of screws postoperatively with comparable durations of surgery. Despite increased efforts by utilizing the intraoperative CT scan, the decrease in reoperations may justify its use.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 28 Jul 2020
1 download since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Department of Trauma Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:16 July 2020
Deposited On:28 Jul 2020 12:48
Last Modified:28 Jul 2020 12:49
Publisher:MDPI Publishing
ISSN:2077-0383
OA Status:Gold
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072254
PubMed ID:32708535

Download

Gold Open Access

Download PDF  'Is the Additional Effort for an Intraoperative CT Scan Justified for Distal Radius Fracture Fixations? A Comparative Clinical Feasibility Study'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 520kB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)