BACKGROUND: Intraoperative imaging is frequently made use of in Orthopaedic surgery. Historically, conventional 2-dimensional fluoroscopy has been extensively used for this purpose. However, 2D imaging falls short when it is required to visualise complex anatomical regions such as pelvis, spine, foot and ankle etc. Intraoperative 3D imaging was introduced to counter these limitations, and is increasingly being employed in various sub-specialities of Orthopaedic Surgery. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to outline the clinical and radiological outcomes of surgeries done under the guidance of intraoperative 3D imaging and compare them to those done under conventional 2D fluoroscopy. METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Scopus) were searched for relevant studies that directly compared intraoperative 3D imaging with conventional fluoroscopy. Case series on intraoperative 3D imaging were also included for qualitative synthesis. The outcomes evaluated included accuracy of implant placement, mean surgical duration and rate of revision surgery due to faulty implants. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies from sub-specialities of spine surgery, pelvi-acetabular surgery, foot and ankle surgery and trauma surgery, having data on a total of 658 patients were analysed. The study groups which had access to intraoperative 3D imaging was found to have significantly increased accuracy of implant positioning (Odds Ratio 0.35 [0.20, 0.62], p = 0.0002) without statistically significant difference in mean surgical time (p = 0.57). Analysis of the studies that included clinical follow up showed that the use of intraoperative 3D imaging led to a significant decrease in the need for revision surgeries due to faulty implant placement. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient evidence that the application of intraoperative 3D imaging leads to precise implant positioning and improves the radiological outcome. Further research in the form of prospective studies with long term follow up is required to determine whether this superior radiological outcome translates to better clinical results in the long run.
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative imaging is frequently made use of in Orthopaedic surgery. Historically, conventional 2-dimensional fluoroscopy has been extensively used for this purpose. However, 2D imaging falls short when it is required to visualise complex anatomical regions such as pelvis, spine, foot and ankle etc. Intraoperative 3D imaging was introduced to counter these limitations, and is increasingly being employed in various sub-specialities of Orthopaedic Surgery. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to outline the clinical and radiological outcomes of surgeries done under the guidance of intraoperative 3D imaging and compare them to those done under conventional 2D fluoroscopy. METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Scopus) were searched for relevant studies that directly compared intraoperative 3D imaging with conventional fluoroscopy. Case series on intraoperative 3D imaging were also included for qualitative synthesis. The outcomes evaluated included accuracy of implant placement, mean surgical duration and rate of revision surgery due to faulty implants. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies from sub-specialities of spine surgery, pelvi-acetabular surgery, foot and ankle surgery and trauma surgery, having data on a total of 658 patients were analysed. The study groups which had access to intraoperative 3D imaging was found to have significantly increased accuracy of implant positioning (Odds Ratio 0.35 [0.20, 0.62], p = 0.0002) without statistically significant difference in mean surgical time (p = 0.57). Analysis of the studies that included clinical follow up showed that the use of intraoperative 3D imaging led to a significant decrease in the need for revision surgeries due to faulty implant placement. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient evidence that the application of intraoperative 3D imaging leads to precise implant positioning and improves the radiological outcome. Further research in the form of prospective studies with long term follow up is required to determine whether this superior radiological outcome translates to better clinical results in the long run.
Authors: Andrew C Hecht; Steven M Koehler; Janelle C Laudone; Arthur Jenkins; Sheeraz Qureshi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Roy I Davidovitch; Yoram Weil; Raj Karia; Jordanna Forman; Christopher Looze; Meir Liebergall; Kenneth Egol Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 5.284