A Systematic Review in 718 Patients
Lisanne J. M. Roelofs,Nick Assink,Joep Kraeima,Kaj ten Duis,Job N. Doornberg,Jean-Paul P. M. de Vries,Anne M. L. Meesters,Frank F. A. IJpma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13237296
IF: 3.9
2024-12-01
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Abstract:Objectives: 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)?" Methods: 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. Results: 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%. Conclusions: 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.
medicine, general & internal