Advertisement

What is the value of 3D virtual reality in understanding acetabular fractures?

  • Lars BrouwersEmail author
  • Albert F. Pull ter Gunne
  • Mariska A. de Jongh
  • Thomas J. J. Maal
  • Rinaldo Vreeken
  • Frank H. W. M. van der Heijden
  • Luke P. H. Leenen
  • Willem R. Spanjersberg
  • Sven H. van Helden
  • Diederik O. Verbeek
  • Mike Bemelman
  • Koen W. W. Lansink
Original Article • PELVIS - ANATOMY

Abstract

Background

Acetabular fractures are difficult to classify owing to the complex three-dimensional (3D) anatomy of the pelvis. 3D printing helps to understand and reliably classify acetabular fracture types. 3D-virtual reality (VR) may have comparable benefits. Our hypothesis is that 3D-VR is equivalent to 3D printing in understanding acetabular fracture patterns.

Methods

A total of 27 observers of various experience levels from several hospitals were requested to classify twenty 3D printed and VR models according to the Judet–Letournel classification. Additionally, surgeons were asked to state their preferred surgical approach and patient positioning. Time to classify each fracture type was recorded. The cases were randomized to rule out a learning curve. Inter-observer agreement was analyzed using Fleiss’ kappa statistics (κ).

Results

Inter-observer agreements varied by observer group and type of model used to classify the fracture: medical students: 3D print (κ = 0.61), VR (κ = 0.41); junior surgical residents: 3D print (0.51) VR (0.54); senior surgical residents: 3D print (0.66) VR (0.52); junior surgeons: 3D print (0.56), VR (0.43); senior surgeons: 3D print (κ = 0.59), VR (κ = 0.42).

Using 3D printed models, there was more agreement on the surgical approach (junior surgeons κ = 0.23, senior surgeons κ = 0.31) when compared with VR (junior surgeons κ = 0.17, senior surgeons 0.25). No difference was found in time used to classify these fractures between 3D printing and VR for all groups (P = 1.000).

Conclusions

The Judet–Letournel acetabular classification stays difficult to interpret; only moderate kappa agreements were found. We found 3D-VR inferior to 3D printing in classifying acetabular fractures. Furthermore, the current 3D-VR technology is still not practical for intra-operative use.

Keywords

Virtual reality 3D printing Acetabular surgery Judet–Letournel classification Inter-observer 

Abbreviations

3D

Three-dimensional

VR

Virtual reality

STL

Surface Tessellation Language

Κ

Kappa statistics

2D

Two-dimensional

CT

Computed tomography

WMO

Human subjects act

DICOM

Digital imaging and communications in medicine

CI

Confidence intervals

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mark van Baal, Ivar de Bruin, Pascal Buijs, Joppe Drop, Birgit van Gerwen, Mark van Heijl, Erik Hermans, Ludo van Hout, Henk A. Formijne Jonkers, Tijmen Koëter, Irene Fleur Kramer, Joost Kuipers, Mhan Fei Lam, Romy Lamers, Jacky Luiten, Siegrid de Meer, Sander Stigt, Arno Teutelink, Siward de Vries and Raoul van Vugt for the study participation. We would also like to thank Barbera Bröhrmann and Johan Stokkermans for the technical support.

Authors’ contributions

LB analyzed and interpreted the data. APtG analyzed the data and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. MdJ and KL performed revisions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Project was supported by the Royal Dutch Medical Association stimulus fund (KNMG). Project no AOTEU-R-2016-050 was supported by AOTRAUMA Switzerland. This project was financially supported by the Royal Dutch Medical Association stimulus fund (www.knmg.nl) and AOTRAUMA Switzerland (Project no AOTEU-R-2016-050, www.aofoundation.org). LB received both grants. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

The published video contains individual person’s data of Lars Brouwers.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was exempted from the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) according to our institutional ethics committee (METC Brabant).

Supplementary material

Movie 1 Example of head movements to rotate the hemi-pelvic model using the Samsung Gear VR. (MP4 4657 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Nawaz A, Khurshid A, Iftikhar H, GR W MN, Dar R (2014) Operative management of displaced acetabular fractures: an institutional experience with a midterm follow-up. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 16:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patil A, Shyam A, Sancheti PK (2016) Management of acetabulum fractures-basic principles and tips and tricks. Trauma Int 2(2):20–24Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Letournel E (1980) Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop 151:81–106Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ohashi K, El-Khoury GY, Abu-Zahra KW, Berbaum KS (2006) Interobserver agreement for letournel acetabular fracture classification with multidetector CT: are standard judet radiographs necessary? 1. Radiology 241(2):386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Toole RV, Cox G, Shanmuganathan K, Castillo RC, Turen CH, Sciadini MF et al (2010) Evaluation of computed tomography for determining the diagnosis of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 24(5):284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garrett J, Halvorson J, Carroll E, Webb LX (2012) Value of 3-D CT in classifying acetabular fractures during orthopedic residency training. Orthopedics 35(5):e615–e620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brouwers L, Pull-ter-Gunne AF, de-Jongh MA, van-der-Heijden FHWM, Leenen LPH, Spanjersberg WR et al (2018) The value of 3D printed models in understanding acetabular fractures. 3D Print Addit Manuf 5(1):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Satava RM (1994) Emerging medical applications of virtual reality: a surgeon’s perspective. Artif Intell Med 6(4):281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 5(1):50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aïm F, Lonjon G, Hannouche D, Nizard R (2016) Effectiveness of virtual reality training in orthopaedic surgery. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 32(1):224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vaughan N, Dubey VN, Wainwright TW, Middleton RG (2016) A review of virtual reality based training simulators for orthopaedic surgery. Med Eng Phys 38(2):59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(10):2223–2227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Judet R, Judet J, Letournel E (1964) Fractures of the acetabulum: classification and surgical approaches for open reduction. preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 46:1615–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giannoudis PV, Grotz MR, Papakostidis C, Dinopoulos H (2005) Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(1):2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fleis JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76(5):378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    King JE (2007) Resource page: generalized Kappa and Orther indices of interrater reliability. http://www.ccitonline.org/jking/homepage/interrater.html. Accessed 10 Apr 2017
  17. 17.
    Riva G (2014) Cahpter 39 - Medical clinical uses of virtual worlds. In: Grimshaw M (ed) The Oxford handbook of virtuality. Oxford University Press, pp 649–665Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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(3):359–362Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maini L, Verma T, Sharma A, Sharma A, Mishra A, Jha S (2018) Evaluation of accuracy of virtual surgical planning for patient-specific pre-contoured plate in acetabular fracture fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(4):495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Brouwers
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Albert F. Pull ter Gunne
    • 3
  • Mariska A. de Jongh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas J. J. Maal
    • 4
  • Rinaldo Vreeken
    • 4
  • Frank H. W. M. van der Heijden
    • 5
  • Luke P. H. Leenen
    • 6
  • Willem R. Spanjersberg
    • 7
  • Sven H. van Helden
    • 7
  • Diederik O. Verbeek
    • 8
  • Mike Bemelman
    • 5
  • Koen W. W. Lansink
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Brabant Trauma Registry, Network Emergency Care BrabantElisabeth-Tweesteden HospitalTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryRadboudUMCNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryRijnstate HospitalArnhemThe Netherlands
  4. 4.3D Lab, Department of Oral- and Maxillofacial SurgeryRadboudUMCNijmegenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryElisabeth-Tweesteden HospitalTilburgThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryIsala HospitalZwolleThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Department of SurgeryErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations