Advertisement

Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional computed tomographies in the classification of acetabular fractures

  • Thanat Kanthawang
  • Tanawat Vaseenon
  • Patumrat Sripan
  • Nuttaya PattamapaspongEmail author
Original Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared the accuracy and timeliness of two-dimensional computed tomography (2DCT) and three-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT) in the diagnosis of different types of acetabular fractures and by different groups of interpreters using the Letournel and Judet classification system.

Methods

Twenty-five fractures cases, five each of five common types of acetabular fractures, were selected. Nineteen interpreters with different levels of experience (ten graduate trainees and nine radiologists) individually classified the fractures using multiplanar 2D and standardized 3DCT images. The 3DCT image set was comprised of 39 images of rotational views of the entire pelvis and the disarticulated fracture hip. Consensus reading by three experts served as a reference standard.

Results

Classification accuracy was 66% using 2DCT, increasing to 73% (p = 0.041) when 3DCT was used. Improvement occurred in the interpretation of transverse and posterior wall-type fractures (p < 0.01 and p = 0.015, respectively), but not in T-type, transverse with posterior wall, or both-column fractures. The improvement was noted only in the graduate trainee group (p = 0.016) but not the radiologist group (p = 0.619). Inter-observer reliability in the graduate trainee group improved from poor to moderate with 3DCT, but remained at a moderate level in both 2DCT and 3DCT in the radiologist group. The overall average interpretation time per case with correct diagnosis was 60 s for 2DCT but only 32 s for 3DCT.

Conclusions

Standardized 3DCT provides greater reliability and faster diagnosis of acetabular fractures and helps improve the accuracy in transverse- and posterior wall-type fractures. In addition, it helps improve the accuracy of less experienced interpreters.

Keywords

Acetabulum Fracture CT scan Three-dimensional 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Professor Dan J. Sherman for his technical advice and to G. Lamar Robert for English editing.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization: Nuttaya Pattamapaspong. Methodology: Thanat Kanthawang, Nuttaya Pattamapaspong. Formal analysis and investigation: Thanat Kanthawang, Tanawat Vaseenon, Patumrat Sripan. Writing-original draft preparation: Thanat Kanthawang. Writing-review and editing: Nuttaya Pattamapaspong.

Compliance with ethical standards

This investigational protocol was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10140_2019_1744_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.8 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 2830 kb)
10140_2019_1744_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (523 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 522 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Falchi M, Rollandi GA (2004) CT of pelvic fractures. Eur J Radiol 50(1):96–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2003.11.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Letournel E (1980) Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop Relat Res 151:81–106Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geijer M, El-Khoury GY (2007) Imaging of the acetabulum in the era of multidetector computed tomography. Emerg Radiol 14(5):271–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-007-0638-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scheinfeld MH, Dym AA, Spektor M, Avery LL, Dym RJ, Amanatullah DF (2015) Acetabular fractures: what radiologists should know and how 3D CT can aid classification. Radiographics 35(2):555–577.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.352140098 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Durkee NJ, Jacobson J, Jamadar D, Karunakar MA, Morag Y, Hayes C (2006) Classification of common acetabular fractures: radiographic and CT appearances. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187(4):915–925.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1269 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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? Radiology 241(2):386–391.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2412050960 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Toole RV, Cox G, Shanmuganathan K, Castillo RC, Turen CH, Sciadini MF, Nascone JW (2010) Evaluation of computed tomography for determining the diagnosis of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 24(5):284–290.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181c83bc0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Visutipol B, Chobtangsin P, Ketmalasiri B, Pattarabanjird N, Varodompun N (2000) Evaluation of Letournel and Judet classification of acetabular fracture with plain radiographs and three-dimensional computerized tomographic scan. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 8(1):33–37.  https://doi.org/10.1177/230949900000800107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kickuth R, Laufer U, Hartung G, Gruening C, Stueckle C, Kirchner J (2002) 3D CT versus axial helical CT versus conventional tomography in the classification of acetabular fractures: a ROC analysis. Clin Radiol 57(2):140–145.  https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.2001.0860 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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–e620.  https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20120426-12 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke-Jenssen J, Ovre SA, Roise O, Madsen JE (2015) Acetabular fracture assessment in four different pelvic trauma centers: have the Judet views become superfluous? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(7):913–918.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2223-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sebaaly A, Riouallon G, Zaraa M, Upex P, Marteau V, Jouffroy P (2018) Standardized three dimensional computerised tomography scanner reconstructions increase the accuracy of acetabular fracture classification. Int Orthop 42(8):1957–1965.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3810-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brandser E, Marsh JL (1998) Acetabular fractures: easier classification with a systematic approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171(5):1217–1228.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.171.5.9798851 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riouallon G, Sebaaly A, Upex P, Zaraa M, Jouffroy P (2018) A new, easy, fast, and reliable method to correctly classify acetabular fractures according to the Letournel System. JB JS Open Access 3(1):e0032.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.17.00032 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boudissa M, Orfeuvre B, Chabanas M, Tonetti J (2017) Does semi-automatic bone-fragment segmentation improve the reproducibility of the Letournel acetabular fracture classification? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103(5):633–638.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.03.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pretorius ES, Fishman EK (1999) Volume-rendered three-dimensional spiral CT: musculoskeletal applications. Radiographics 19(5):1143–1160.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se061143 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tractenberg RE, Yumoto F, Jin S, Morris JC (2010) Sample size requirements for training to a kappa agreement criterion on clinical dementia ratings. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 24(3):264–268.  https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181d489c6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of MedicineChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand
  3. 3.Northern Thai Research Group of Radiation Oncology (NTRG-RO), Faculty of MedicineChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations