Roelofs Lisanne J M, Assink Nick, Kraeima Joep, Ten Duis Kaj, Doornberg Job N, de Vries Jean-Paul P M, Meesters Anne M L, IJpma Frank F A
Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 VB Groningen, The Netherlands.
3D Lab and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9700 VB Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Clin Med. 2024 Nov 30;13(23):7296. doi: 10.3390/jcm13237296.
: Three-dimensional (3D) technology is increasingly applied in the surgical treatment of distal radial fractures and may optimize surgical planning, improve fracture reduction, facilitate implant and screw positioning, and thus prevent surgical complications. The main research questions of this review were as follows: (1) "How do 3D-assisted versus 2D-assisted distal radius fracture surgery compare in terms of intraoperative metrics (i.e., operation time and fluoroscopy frequency)?", and (2) "What are the effects of 3D-assisted versus 2D-assisted surgery on postoperative outcomes (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), fracture reduction, complication rate, and screw placement accuracy)?" : This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. In total, 873 articles were found between 1 January 2010 and 1 April 2024, of which 12 (718 patients) were suitable for inclusion. The quality of the studies, assessed using the McMaster quality assessment, ranged from moderate to excellent, although the surgical techniques and outcome measures varied widely. Articles comparing a 3D group to a 2D group (conventional imaging) and reporting on primary or secondary outcomes were included in the analysis, for which weighted means and ranges were calculated. : Three different concepts of 3D-assisted surgery techniques were identified: (1) 3D virtual surgical planning (VSP), (2) 3D-printed handheld models, and (3) 3D intraoperative guides. Differences between 3D-assisted and conventional 2D-assisted surgery were evaluated. Regarding intraoperative metrics, 3D-assisted surgery significantly reduced operation time by 6 min (weighted mean 66.9 versus 73.2 min) and reduced the fluoroscopy frequency by 1.1 images (5.8 versus 4.7 times). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the weighted mean of the DASH score differed between the 3D- and 2D-assisted groups (17.8 versus 23.9 points), and no differences in PRWE or VAS score were found. Furthermore, our results showed no significant differences in the ROM and fracture reduction parameters. In terms of complications, the application of 3D-assisted surgery decreased the complication rate from 10.7% to 3.6%, and the use of screws with appropriate lengths improved from 75% to 86%. : Applications of 3D-assisted surgery in distal radial fracture surgery can slightly reduce the operation time and fluoroscopy frequency. Evidence for the improvement of fracture reduction and functional outcomes is still lacking, although it likely reduces the complication rate and improves the use of appropriate screw lengths.
三维(3D)技术在桡骨远端骨折的手术治疗中应用越来越广泛,它可以优化手术规划、改善骨折复位、便于植入物和螺钉定位,从而预防手术并发症。本综述的主要研究问题如下:(1)“在术中指标(即手术时间和透视频率)方面,3D辅助与2D辅助的桡骨远端骨折手术相比如何?”,以及(2)“3D辅助手术与2D辅助手术对术后结果(患者报告结局量表(PROMs)、活动范围(ROM)、骨折复位、并发症发生率和螺钉置入准确性)有何影响?” 本综述按照系统评价的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行。2010年1月1日至2024年4月1日期间共检索到873篇文章,其中12篇(718例患者)适合纳入。尽管手术技术和结局指标差异很大,但使用麦克马斯特质量评估法评估的研究质量从中等到优秀不等。将3D组与2D组(传统成像)进行比较并报告主要或次要结局的文章纳入分析,并计算加权均值和范围。确定了3D辅助手术技术的三种不同概念:(1)3D虚拟手术规划(VSP),(2)3D打印手持模型,以及(3)3D术中导板。评估了3D辅助手术与传统2D辅助手术之间的差异。在术中指标方面,3D辅助手术显著缩短手术时间6分钟(加权均值66.9分钟对73.2分钟),并减少透视频率1.1次影像(5.8次对4.7次)。在术后结果方面,3D辅助组与2D辅助组的DASH评分加权均值有所不同(17.8分对23.9分),PRWE或VAS评分未发现差异。此外,我们的结果显示ROM和骨折复位参数无显著差异。在并发症方面,3D辅助手术的应用使并发症发生率从10.7%降至3.6%,合适长度螺钉的使用从75%提高到86%。3D辅助手术在桡骨远端骨折手术中的应用可略微缩短手术时间和减少透视频率。虽然可能降低并发症发生率并改善合适长度螺钉的使用,但仍缺乏改善骨折复位和功能结局的证据。