Department of Traumatic Orthopaedics, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
J Surg Res. 2013 Nov;185(1):338-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.074. Epub 2013 Jun 22.
Percutaneous stabilization using three-dimensional (3D) navigation system is a promising treatment for pelvic and acetabular fractures. However, there are still some controversies regarding the use of 3D navigation to treat pelvic and acetabular fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare the Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation, standard fluoroscopy, and two-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic navigation in placing percutaneous lag screws in pelvic specimens to better understand the merits of 3D navigation techniques.
Fifty-four instrumentation procedures were performed in this study using six cadaveric pelvic specimens. Three groups were designated for different procedures and tests: group I, standard fluoroscopy; group II, 2D fluoroscopic navigation; and group III, Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation. Nine screws were placed in each pelvis, including four screws placed bilaterally through the ilium into S1 and S2 vertebrae, four screws placed bilaterally through anterior and posterior columns of acetabulum, and one screw placed through the pubic symphysis. 3D fluoroscopic techniques were evaluated to determine the accuracy of screw position, instrumentation time, and fluoroscopic time. The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 13.0.
The malposition rate was 38.89%, 22.22%, and 0% in standard fluoroscopy, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, and Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between standard fluoroscopy and 2D fluoroscopic navigation. Compared with Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation, there were significant differences (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P < 0.05). The mean instrumentation operating time using Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation technique was 15.4 ± 4.5 min. There were significant differences compared with standard fluoroscopy (31.5 ± 6.2 min) and 2D fluoroscopic navigation (26.3 ± 7.5 min; ANOVA, post hoc Scheffe, P < 0.01). The mean fluoroscopic time of Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation was 66 ± 4.8 min. Compared with standard fluoroscopy (132.8 ± 7.3 min) and 2D fluoroscopic navigation (47.7 ± 5.6 min), there were significant differences (ANOVA, post hoc least significant difference, P < 0.01).
In the present study, we compared Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, and standard fluoroscopy. Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation showed a higher accuracy rate in positioning and a shorter instrumentation operating time. The fluoroscopic time was longer in Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation than that in standard fluoroscopy, indicating that radiation exposure can be moderately reduced in Iso-C(3D) fluoroscopic navigation operation, although the fluoroscopic time was the shortest in 2D fluoroscopic navigation.
经皮三维(3D)导航系统固定术是治疗骨盆和髋臼骨折的一种有前途的治疗方法。然而,对于使用 3D 导航治疗骨盆和髋臼骨折仍存在一些争议。本研究的目的是比较 Iso-C(3D)透视导航、标准透视和二维(2D)透视导航在骨盆标本中置入经皮拉力螺钉的效果,以便更好地了解 3D 导航技术的优点。
本研究使用 6 具尸体骨盆标本进行了 54 次器械操作。将 6 具骨盆标本分为三组,分别进行不同的操作和测试:组 I,标准透视;组 II,2D 透视导航;组 III,Iso-C(3D)透视导航。每组骨盆均置入 9 枚螺钉,包括双侧经髂骨置入 S1 和 S2 椎体的 4 枚螺钉、双侧经髋臼前柱和后柱置入的 4 枚螺钉以及 1 枚经耻骨联合置入的螺钉。使用 3D 透视技术评估螺钉位置、器械操作时间和透视时间的准确性。使用 SPSS 13.0 对数据进行统计学分析。
标准透视、2D 透视导航和 Iso-C(3D)透视导航组的螺钉位置不良率分别为 38.89%、22.22%和 0%。标准透视与 2D 透视导航之间无显著差异。与 Iso-C(3D)透视导航相比,差异有统计学意义(方差分析[ANOVA],P<0.05)。使用 Iso-C(3D)透视导航技术的平均器械操作时间为 15.4±4.5min。与标准透视(31.5±6.2min)和 2D 透视导航(26.3±7.5min;ANOVA,事后 Scheffe 检验,P<0.01)相比,差异有统计学意义。Iso-C(3D)透视导航的平均透视时间为 66±4.8min。与标准透视(132.8±7.3min)和 2D 透视导航(47.7±5.6min)相比,差异有统计学意义(ANOVA,事后最小显著差异检验,P<0.01)。
在本研究中,我们比较了 Iso-C(3D)透视导航、2D 透视导航和标准透视。Iso-C(3D)透视导航在定位方面具有更高的准确性和更短的器械操作时间。Iso-C(3D)透视导航的透视时间比标准透视长,这表明在 Iso-C(3D)透视导航操作中可以适度减少辐射暴露,尽管 2D 透视导航的透视时间最短。