Acetabular defect classification in times of 3D imaging and patient-specific treatment protocols

被引:3
|
作者
Horas, K. [1 ]
Arnholdt, J. [1 ]
Steinert, A. F. [1 ]
Hoberg, M. [1 ]
Rudert, M. [1 ]
Holzapfel, B. M. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wurzburg, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Koenig Ludwig Haus,Brettreichstr 11, D-97074 Wurzburg, Germany
[2] Queensland Univ Technol, Inst Hlth & Biomed Innovat, Regenerat Med, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
来源
ORTHOPADE | 2017年 / 46卷 / 02期
关键词
Acetabular bone defects; Acetabular revision arthroplasty; Paprosky classification; Computed tomography; 3D analysis; BONE STOCK LOSS; PELVIC OSTEOLYSIS; REVISION HIP; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; UNITED-STATES; RELIABILITY; RADIOGRAPHS; VALIDITY; ARTHROPLASTY; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1007/s00132-016-3378-y
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Parallel to the rising number of revision hip procedures, an increasing number of complex periprosthetic osseous defects can be expected. Stable long-term fixation of the revision implant remains the ultimate goal of the surgical protocol. Within this context, an elaborate preoperative planning process including anticipation of the periacetabular defect form and size and analysis of the remaining supporting osseous elements are essential. However, detection and evaluation of periacetabular bone defects using an unsystematic analysis of plain anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis is in many cases difficult. Therefore, periacetabular bone defect classification schemes such as the Paprosky system have been introduced that use standardized radiographic criteria to better anticipate the intraoperative reality. Recent studies were able to demonstrate that larger defects are often underestimated when using the Paprosky classification and that the intra- and interobserver reliability of the system is low. This makes it hard to compare results in terms of defects being studied. Novel software tools that are based on the analysis of CT data may provide an opportunity to overcome the limitations of native radiographic defect analysis. In the following article we discuss potential benefits of these novel instruments against the background of the obvious limitations of the currently used native radiographic defect analysis.
引用
收藏
页码:168 / 178
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] State of the art: 3D printing for creating compliant patient-specific congenital heart defect models
    Janelle Schrot
    Todd Pietila
    Anurag Sahu
    Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 16 (Suppl 1)
  • [22] Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
    Shilo, Dekel
    Capucha, Tal
    Goldstein, Dana
    Bereznyak, Yekaterina
    Emodi, Omri
    Rachmiel, Adi
    JOVE-JOURNAL OF VISUALIZED EXPERIMENTS, 2020, (159):
  • [23] Analysis of the Effectiveness of 3D Printed Patient-Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Maxillary Defect Secondary to Mucormycosis
    Alwala, Aditya Mohan
    Ramesh, K.
    Swayampakula, Himaja
    Vura, Nanda Gopal
    Shaik, Sheraz Bar
    Hiranmayi, K. Vidya
    JOURNAL OF MAXILLOFACIAL & ORAL SURGERY, 2023, 22 (03): : 728 - 733
  • [24] Analysis of the Effectiveness of 3D Printed Patient-Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Maxillary Defect Secondary to Mucormycosis
    Aditya Mohan Alwala
    K. Ramesh
    Himaja Swayampakula
    Nanda Gopal Vura
    Sheraz Bar Shaik
    K. Vidya Hiranmayi
    Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 2023, 22 : 728 - 733
  • [25] Patient-specific SPECT imaging protocols to standardize image noise
    Cuddy-Walsh, Sarah G.
    Clackdoyle, Duncan C.
    Renaud, Jennifer M.
    Wells, R. Glenn
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY, 2021, 28 (01) : 225 - 233
  • [26] Semantic Annotation of Patient-Specific 3D Anatomical Models
    Banerjee, Imon
    Agibetov, Asan
    Catalano, Chiara Eva
    Patane, Giuseppe
    Spagnuolo, Michela
    2015 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CYBERWORLDS (CW), 2015, : 22 - 29
  • [27] Automating 3d meshing method for patient-specific modeling
    Guan, Yabo
    Zhang, Jiangyue
    Yoganandan, Narayan
    Pintar, Frank A.
    BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES INSTRUMENTATION, VOL 42, 2006, 42 : 199 - 204
  • [28] Patient-specific 3D Models for Autogenous Ear Reconstruction
    Witek, Lukasz
    Khouri, Kimberly S.
    Coelho, Paulo G.
    Flores, Roberto L.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2016, 4 (10)
  • [29] 3D printing for patient-specific implants in musculoskeletal oncology
    Kotrych, Daniel
    Angelini, Andrea
    Bohatyrewicz, Andrzej
    Ruggieri, Pietro
    EFORT OPEN REVIEWS, 2023, 8 (05) : 331 - 339
  • [30] 3D printing of patient-specific anatomy: A tool to improve patient consent and enhance imaging interpretation by trainees
    Liew, Yaoren
    Beveridge, Erin
    Demetriades, Andreas K.
    Hughes, Mark A.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 29 (05) : 712 - 714