The aim of this study was to evaluate the intraoperative revision rate and reasons for revision following 3D imaging in the management of dislocated articular tibial plateau fractures based on a large patient sample. This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation due type B or C tibial plateau fracture according to the AO/OTA classification between August 2001 and December 2017 using intraoperative cone beam CT (3D imaging) for the analysis of fracture reduction and implant placement. The findings of the 3D scan were categorized regarding the amount and type of revision. Furthermore, demographic data was examined. Five hundred and fifty-nine consecutive fractures were included in the study. Evaluation of the image data records revealed an intraoperative revision due to the usage of 3D imaging in 148 out of 559 cases (26.5%). The most common reasons for an intraoperative revision were insufficient fracture reduction (114 cases) and screw length (21 cases). This study reveals indications for a limited analysis of fracture reduction and implant placement during the operative treatment of dislocated articular tibial plateau fractures using conventional fluoroscopy. In view of the high revision rate during open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures due to 3D imaging the usage of intraoperative cone beam, CT may be considered. If this is not possible, a postoperative computed tomography may therefore be reasonable.

In acetabular fractures, the assessment of reduction and implant placement has limitations in conventional 2D intraoperative imaging. 3D imaging offers the opportunity to acquire CT-like images and thus to improve the results. However, clinical experience shows that even 3D imaging has limitations, especially regarding artifacts when implants are placed. The purpose of this study was to assess the difference between intraoperative 3D imaging and postoperative CT regarding reduction and implant placement. Twenty consecutive cases of acetabular fractures were selected with a complete set of intraoperative 3D imaging and postoperative CT data. The largest detectable step and the largest detectable gap were measured in all three standard planes. These values were compared between the 3D data sets and CT data sets. Additionally, possible correlations between the possible confounders age and BMI and the difference between 3D and CT values were tested. The mean difference of largest visible step between the 3D imaging and CT scan was 2.0 ± 1.8 mm (0.0–5.8, p = 0.02) in the axial, 1.3 ± 1.4 mm (0.0–3.7, p = 0.15) in the sagittal and 1.9 ± 2.4 mm (0.0–7.4, p = 0.22) in the coronal views. The mean difference of largest visible gap between the 3D imaging and CT scan was 3.1 ± 3.6 mm (0.0–14.1, p = 0.03) in the axial, 4.6 ± 2.7 mm (1.2–8.7, p = 0.001) in the sagittal and 3.5 ± 4.0 mm (0.0–15.4, p = 0.06) in the coronal views. A positive correlation between the age and the difference in gap measurements in the sagittal view was shown (rho = 0.556, p = 0.011). Intraoperative 3D imaging is a valuable adjunct in assessing reduction and implant placement in acetabular fractures but has limitations due to artifacts caused by implant material. This can lead to missed malreduction and impairment of clinical outcome, so postoperative CT should be considered in these cases.

Three-dimensional (3D) imaging with a mobile C-arm has proven to be a valuable intraoperative tool in trauma surgery. However, little data is available concerning its use in the treatment of elbow fractures. The aim of the current study was to determine the intraoperative findings and consequences of 3D imaging in the treatment of elbow fractures. Between 2001 and 2015, prospectively collected data of 36 patients who underwent intraoperative 3D imaging during elbow surgery were recorded. The findings and consequences of the intraoperative 3D scans were analyzed in a retrospective chart review. For clinical evaluation the analysis included the patients’ medical history, the injury pattern of the affected elbow and concomitant injuries. Intraoperative and postoperative complications and revision surgeries were evaluated as well. In 6 patients (16.7 %) analysis of the intraoperative 3D scan led to an immediate revision due to the detection of intra-articular screw placement (n = 3, 8.3 %) and remaining intra-articular step of >2 mm (n = 3, 8.3 %). In all of these patients, correct implant positioning and anatomical reduction could be achieved after immediate intraoperative revision, which was verified by a repeated intraoperative 3D scan. None of the 36 patients needed surgical revision based on postoperative radiological examinations due to secondary dislocation, wrong implant placement or remaining steps in the articular surface. Intraoperative 3D imaging offers additional information about fracture reduction and implant positioning in the treatment of elbow fractures compared to conventional intraoperative 2D imaging. It may therefore reduce the need for revision surgery. The value of intraoperative 3D imaging for clinical outcomes still needs to be assessed.

Anatomic reconstruction of articular fractures is one of the critical factors in later achieving good functional outcome. Intraoperative 3D imaging has been shown to offer better evaluation and therefore can significantly improve the results. The purpose of this study was to assess the difference between intraoperative three-dimensional fluoroscopy (3D) and intraoperative computed tomography (iCT) imaging regarding fracture reduction, implant placement and articular impressions in a distal humeral fracture model. AO type 13-B2 fracture pattern were created in upper extremity cadaver specimens. Articular step-offs, intra-articular screw placement and intraarticular impressions of different degrees of severity were created. All specimens had imaging performed. For each articular pattern 3D fluoroscopy in standard (3Ds) and high quality (3Dh) were performed (Arcadis Orbic, Siemens, Germany) as well as an intraoperative CT scan (iCT, Airo, Brainlab, Germany). Three observers evaluated all imaging studies regarding subjective and objective parameters. iCT is more precise than 3D fluoroscopic imaging for detection of articular impressions. Articular step-offs and intraarticular screw placement are similar for iCT and 3D. Subjective imaging quality is the highest for iCT and lowest for 3Ds. Intraoperative CT may be particularly useful in assessing articular impressions and providing a good subjective image quality for the surgeon.

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of reduction quality, using intraoperative 3D imaging, on quality of life and functional outcome in the operative treatment of tibial plafond fractures. Methods: A group of patients with tibial plafond fractures was re-examined. The operative treatment was performed between September 2001 and October 2011. The follow-up examination was at least 2 years after the final surgical procedure. Final reduction result was assessed intraoperatively using a mobile 3D C-arm. A categorization with regard to descriptive parameters as well as type and size of joint surface irregularities was performed. Follow-up results were evaluated using: Olerud and Molander (O & M) score, Short-Form-36 (SF-36) score, movement deficit, Kellgren and Lawrence grade of osteoarthritis, and pain intensity. Results: 34 patients with operatively treated tibial plafond fracture could be re-examined. Reduction quality had the greatest influence on functional result measured by the O & M score (p = 0.001) and the PCS domain of the SF-36 score (p = 0.018). Significant differences with regard to O & M score (p = 0.000), SF-36 score (p = 0.001 to p = 0.02; without MCS domain), movement deficit (p = 0.001), grade of osteoarthritis (p = 0.005) and pain (p = 0.001) could be verified under consideration of the reduction quality. The group with the anatomically more accurate reduction also showed a better result for clinical follow-up and quality of life. Furthermore, it is not the type of joint surface irregularity that is always decisive, but rather the size. Conclusions: Despite other relevant factors, it appears that reduction quality –which can be analyzed with intraoperative 3D imaging– plays the most important role in postoperative quality of life and functional outcome. Corrections should therefore be performed on joint surface irregularities with a size above 2 mm.

Background: Currently available procedures for the treatment of minimally displaced acetabular fractures include conservative treatment and minimally invasive percutaneous screw fixation. Screw fixation of acetabular fractures allows patients’ early full-weight bearing due to improved biomechanic stability. Can the range of motion, pain and mobility and quality of life in patients with acetabular fractures be improved by minimally invasive screw fixation, compared to conservative treatment in the long term?Methods: Patients treated for a minimally displaced acetabular fracture, either conservatively or by closed reduction percutaneous screw fixation, in the period from 2001 to 2013 were included in this retrospective study. Minimal displacement was considered to be less than 5 mm. As well as the collection and analysis of baseline data, Harris Hip Score, Merle d’Aubigné score and Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire data were recorded in the context of a clinical study. To better account for confounding factors, patients of each group were matched. The matched-pair criteria included age, BMI, Letournel fracture classification and the presence of associated injuries.Results: Twenty-five patients from each group were matched. On the Harris Hip Score, conservatively treated patients obtained 96 points (52–100, SD 17) vs. 89 points (45–100, SD 17,p= 0.624). On the Merle d’Aubigné score, conservatively treated patients obtained 17 points (10–18, SD 2) vs. 17 points (11–18, SD 2,p= 0.342).Patients with acetabular fractures treated by minimally invasive screw fixation did not result in improved quality of life, measured by SF-12 questionnaire, compared to conservatively treated patients (PCS 47, SD 9 vs. 44, SD 10;p= 0.294 and MCS 51, SD 7 vs. 53, SD 7;p= 0.795).Conclusions: The clinical results of the two groups revealed no statistically significant differences. From the data, it cannot be deduced that minimally invasive surgical therapy is superior to conservative treatment of minimally displaced acetabular fractures. Prospective randomised studies are recommended to allow reliable evaluation of both treatment options.Trial registration: Retrospectively registered