Skip to main content
Log in

Planning acetabular fracture reduction using a patient-specific biomechanical model: a prospective and comparative clinical study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A simple, patient-specific biomechanical model (PSBM) is proposed in which the main surgical tools and actions can be simulated, which enables clinicians to evaluate different strategies for an optimal surgical planning. A prospective and comparative clinical study was performed to assess early clinical and radiological results.

Methods

From January 2019 to July 2019, a PSBM was created for every operated acetabular fracture (simulation group). DICOM data were extracted from the pre-operative high-resolution CT scans to build a 3D model of the fracture using segmentation methods. A PSBM was implemented in a custom software allowing a biomechanical simulation of the surgery in terms of reduction sequences. From July 2019 to December 2019, every patient with an operated for acetabular fracture without PSBM was included in the standard group. Surgery duration, blood loss, radiological results and per-operative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups.

Results

Twenty-two patients were included, 10 in the simulation group and 12 in the standard group. The two groups were comparable regarding age, time to surgery, fracture pattern distribution and surgical approaches. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the simulation group: 113 min ± 33 (60–180) versus 184 ± 58 (90–260), p = 0.04. The mean blood loss was significantly lower in the simulation group, p = 0.01. No statistical significant differences were found regarding radiological results (p = 0.16). No per-operative complications were recorded.

Conclusion

This study confirms that pre-operative planning in acetabular surgery based on a PSBM results in a shorter operative time and a reduction of blood loss during surgery. This study also confirms the feasibility of PSBM planning in daily clinical routine.

Level of evidence

II: prospective study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boudissa M, Courvoisier A, Chabanas M, Tonetti J (2018) Computer assisted surgery in preoperative planning of acetabular fracture surgery: state of the art. Expert Rev Med Dev 15:81–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sebaaly A, Riouallon G, Zaraa M, Jouffroy P (2016) The added value of intraoperative CT scanner and screw navigation in displaced posterior wall acetabular fracture with articular impaction. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102:947–950

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cimerman M, Kristan A (2007) Preoperative planning in pelvic and acetabular surgery: the value of advanced computerised planning modules. Injury 38:442–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hu Y, Li H, Qiao G, Liu H, Ji A, Ye F (2011) Computer-assisted virtual surgical procedure for acetabular fractures based on real CT data. Injury 42:1121–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fornaro J, Keel M, Harders M, Marincek B, Székely G, Frauenfelder T (2010) An interactive surgical planning tool for acetabular fractures: initial results. J Orthop Surg Res 4:5–50

    Google Scholar 

  6. Upex P, Jouffroy P, Riouallon G (2017) Application of 3D printing for treating fractures of both columns of the acetabulum: benefit of precontouring plates on the mirrored healthy pelvis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:331–334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Boudissa M, Ruatti S, Kerschbaumer G, Milaire M, Merloz P, Tonetti J (2016) Part 2: outcome of acetabular fractures and associated prognostic factors-a ten-year retrospective study of one hundred and fifty six operated cases with open reduction and internal fixation. Int Orthop 40:2151–2156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Meena UK, Tripathy SK, Sen RK, Aggarwal S, Behera P (2013) Predictors of postoperative outcome for acetabular fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:929–935

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Boudissa M, Oliveri H, Chabanas M, Tonetti J (2018) Computer-assisted surgery in acetabular fractures: virtual reduction of acetabular fracture using the first patient-specific biomechanical model simulator. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104:359–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Oliveri H, Boudissa M, Tonetti J, Chabanas M (2017) Planning acetabular fracture reduction using patient-specific multibody simulation of the hip. Med Imaging 2017 ImageGuided Proced Robot Interv Model 10135:101352P. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2250380

  11. Boudissa M, Chabanas M, Oliveri H, Bahl G, Tonetti J (2019) Pre-operative planning in acetabular and pelvic ring surgery: the first biomechanical model. SURGETICA, Rennes

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boudissa M (2019) Virtual reduction of complex fractures of the pelvis using the first patient-specific biomechanical simulation. Dissertation, Université Grenoble Alpes

  13. Lloyd J, Stavness I, Fels S (2012) Artisynth: a fast interactive biomechanical modeling toolkit combining multibody and finite element simulation. In: Payan Y, Gefen A (eds) Soft tissue biomechanical modeling for computer assisted surgery, Studies in Mechanobiology, Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials, Springer, New York, pp 355–394

  14. Fouard C, Deram A, Keraval Y, Promayon E (2012) CamiTK: a modular framework integrating visualization, image processing and biomechanical modeling. In: Payan Y (ed) Soft tissue biomechanical modeling for computer assisted surgery, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 323–354

  15. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC, Gerig G (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31:1116–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Phillips AT, Pankaj P, Howie CR, Usmani AS, Simpson AH (2007) Finite element modelling of the pelvis: inclusion of muscular and ligamentous boundary conditions. Med Eng Phys 29:739–748

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Phillips AT (2009) The femur as a musculo-skeletal construct: a free boundary condition modelling approach. Med Eng Phys 31:673–680

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Clarke SG, Phillips AT, Bull AM (2013) Evaluating a suitable level of model complexity for finite element analysis of the intact acetabulum. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 16:717–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fan Y, Lei J, Zhu F, Li Z, Chen W, Liu X (2015) Biomechanical analysis of the fixation system for T-shaped acetabular fracture. Comput Math Methods Med 2015:370631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dakin GJ, Arbelaez RA, Molz FJ 4th, Alonso JE, Mann KA, Eberhardt AW (2001) Elastic and viscoelastic properties of the human pubic symphysis joint: effects of lateral impact joint loading. J Biomech Eng 123:218–226

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cooper HJ, Walters BL (2015) Rodriguez JA (2015) Anatomy of the hip capsule and pericapsular structures: a cadaveric study. Clin Anat 28:665–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Elkins JM, Stroud NJ, Rudert MJ, Tochigi Y, Pedersen DR, Ellis BJ, Callaghan JJ, Weiss JA, Brown TD (2011) The capsule’s contribution to total hip construct stability-a finite element analysis. J Orthop Res 29:1642–1648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Matta JM, Merritt PO (1988) Displaced acetabular fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 230:83–97

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sagi HC, Afsari A, Dziadosz D (2010) The anterior intra-pelvic (modified rives-stoppa) approach for fixation of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 24:263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Elmadag M, Güzel Y, Acar MA, Uzer G, Arazi M (2014) The Stoppa approach versus ilioinguinal approach for anterior acetabular fractures: a case control study assessing blood loss complications and function outcomes. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100:675–680

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang H, Wang F, Newman S, Lin Y, Chen X, Xu L, Wang Q (2016) Application of an innovative computerized virtual planning system in acetabular fracture surgery: a feasibility study. Injury 47:1698–1701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu M, Zhang LH, Zhang YZ, Zhang LC, He CQ, Wang Y, Tang PF (2014) Custom-made locked plating for acetabular fracture: a pilot study in 24 consecutive cases. Orthopedics 7:660–667

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zeng C, Xing W, Wu Z, Huang H, Huang W (2016) A combination of three-dimensional printing and computer-assisted virtual surgical procedure for preoperative planning of acetabular fracture reduction. Injury 47:2223–2227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Weidert S, Andress S, Suero E, Becker C, Hartel M, Behle M, Willy C (2019) 3D printing in orthopedic and trauma surgery education and training: possibilities and fields of application. Unfallchirurg 122:444–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Letournel E (1980) Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop 151:81–106

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study received support from ANR France and the Fondation pour l’Avenir (labex CAMI), reference ANR-11-LABX-0004.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MB, MC, JT contributed to conceptualization. HO, GB, BN were involved in data curation. MB, MC contributed to methodology. JT was involved in supervision. MB contributed to writing—original draft. MH was involved in writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehdi Boudissa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boudissa, M., Noblet, B., Bahl, G. et al. Planning acetabular fracture reduction using a patient-specific biomechanical model: a prospective and comparative clinical study. Int J CARS 16, 1305–1317 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02352-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02352-x

Keywords

Navigation