Blough Christian, Huang Kevin, Garlich John, Little Milton, Moon Charles, Marecek Geoffrey
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 444 S. San Vincente Blvd, Suite 603, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 Dec 21;35(1):43. doi: 10.1007/s00590-024-04121-3.
Accurate rotational reduction following femoral shaft fracture fixation is absent in up to 28% of cases yet is critical for lower extremity biomechanics. The objective of this cadaveric study was to compare the results of freehand methods of rotational reduction with software-assisted rotational reduction.
Four fellowship-trained orthopedic trauma surgeons attempted rotational correction in a cadaveric model with fluoroscopic assistance using (1) their method of choice (MoC) and (2) software assistance (SA). After correction, deviation from baseline rotation was calculated.
The mean difference between the two methods (MoC-SA) was 1.1 which was not significant when comparing all raters and between raters individually. SA had significantly less variability compared to MoC. The rate of clinically relevant rotational deformity (> 15°) was 28% using MoC and 11% using SA.
Rotational assessment of diaphyseal femur fractures in this cadaveric model was not significantly different when compared between method of choice and software augmentation.
高达28%的股骨干骨折固定术后未实现精确的旋转复位，而这对下肢生物力学至关重要。本尸体研究的目的是比较徒手旋转复位方法与软件辅助旋转复位的结果。
四名接受过专科培训的骨科创伤外科医生在透视辅助下，在尸体模型中尝试进行旋转矫正，分别使用（1）他们自己选择的方法（MoC）和（2）软件辅助（SA）。矫正后，计算与基线旋转的偏差。
两种方法（MoC-SA）之间的平均差异为1.1，在比较所有评估者以及单独比较评估者时，差异均无统计学意义。与MoC相比，SA的变异性显著更小。使用MoC时临床相关旋转畸形（>15°）的发生率为28%，使用SA时为11%。
在本尸体模型中比较选择的方法和软件增强时，股骨干骨折的旋转评估无显著差异。
