Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CT-generated Radiographs in Obese Patients With Acetabular Fractures: Can They Be Used in Lieu of Plain Radiographs?

  • Symposium: Fractures of the Acetabulum
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

Acetabular fracture diagnosis is traditionally made with AP and oblique pelvic plain radiographs. Obesity may impair diagnostic accuracy of plain radiographs. New CT reconstruction algorithms allow for simulated radiographs that may eliminate the adverse imaging effects of obesity.

Questions/purposes

In obese patients with acetabular fractures, we compared CT-generated and plain radiographs in terms of (1) ability to classify fracture type, (2) agreement in fracture classification, and (3) surgeon performance at different experience levels.

Methods

CT-generated and plain radiograph image sets were created for 16 obese (BMI > 35) patients with 17 acetabular fractures presenting from 2009 to 2011. Three orthopaedic trauma attending physicians, three senior residents, and three junior residents independently viewed these sets and recorded their diagnoses. These diagnoses were compared to the postoperative findings, which we defined as the gold standard for diagnosis. To assess intraobserver reliability, the same observers reviewed a rerandomized set 1 month later. We had 80% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentage of correctly classified fractures based on a post hoc sample size calculation and 80% power to detect a 0.10 difference in κ value based on both a priori and post hoc sample size calculations.

Results

With the numbers available (153 observations in each image set, 51 for each of the three observer groups), we found no differences between CT-generated and plain radiographs, respectively, in terms of percentage of correct diagnoses for the observer groups (all observers: 54% versus 49%, p = 0.48; attendings: 61% versus 59%, p = 0.83; senior residents: 51% versus 53%, p = 0.84; and junior residents: 49% versus 35%, p = 0.16). Furthermore, agreement between CT-generated and plain radiographic fracture classifications was substantial (κ = 0.67). Nonetheless, the attending and senior resident groups performed better in correctly classifying the fracture than the junior residents when using plain radiographs (p = 0.01 and p = 0.049, respectively). Performance was not different when comparing the attendings to the senior resident and junior groups or comparing the senior residents to the junior residents using CT-generated radiographs (p = 0.32, p = 0.22, and p = 0.83, respectively).

Conclusions

CT-generated radiographs are as good as plain radiographs for experienced surgeons for classifying acetabular fractures in obese patients. CT-generated imaging may be valuable in both teaching and clinical settings, and it may spare the patient additional radiation exposure and discomfort.

Level of Evidence

Level II, diagnostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1A–C
Fig. 2A–C

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Matta JM. Letournel classification for acetabular fractures: assessment of interobserver and intraobserver reliability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1704–1709.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Borrelli J Jr, Peelle M, McFarland E, Evanoff B, Ricci WM. Computer-generated radiographs are as good as plain radiographs for assessment of acetabular fractures. Am J Orthop. 2008;37:455–4603.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overweight and obesity. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html. Accessed November 28, 2013.

  4. Court-Brown CM, Aitken SA, Forward D, O’Toole RV 3rd. The epidemiology of fractures. In: Bucholz RW, Heckman JD, Court-Brown CM, Tornetta P 3rd, eds. Rockwood and Green’s Fractures in Adults. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009:1463–1523.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Judet R, Judet J, Letournel E. Fractures of the acetabulum: classification and surgical approaches for open reduction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964;46:1615–1638.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuszyk BS, Heath DG, Bliss DF, Fishman EK. Skeletal 3-D CT: advantages of volume rendering over surface rendering. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25:207–214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Laird A, Keating JF. Acetabular fractures: a 16 year prospective epidemiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:969–973.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Letournel E, Judet R. Fractures of the Acetabulum. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 1993.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Ly TV, Stover MD, Sims SH, Reilly MC. The use of an algorithm for classifying acetabular fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2371–2376.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, De Coster TA, Prokuski L, Sirkin MS, Ziran B, Henley B, Audige L. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium-2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(suppl 10):S1–S133.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Martinez CR, Di Pasquale TG, Helfet DL, Graham AW, Sanders RW, Ray LD. Evaluation of acetabular fractures with two- and three-dimensional CT. Radiographics. 1992;12:227–242.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials. 2nd ed. London, UK: BC Decker, Inc; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ohashi K, El-Khoury GY, Abu-Zahra KW, Berbaum KS. Interobserver agreement for Letournel acetabular fracture classification with multidetector CT: are standard Judet radiographs necessary? Radiology. 2006;241:386–391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Toole RV, Cox G, Shanmuganathan K, Castillo RC, Turen CH, Sciadini MF, Nascone JW. Evaluation of computed tomography for determining the diagnosis of acetabular fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:284–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Porter SE, Russell GV, Dews RC, Qin Z, Woodall J Jr, Graves M. Complications of acetabular fracture surgery in morbidly obese patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22:589–594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Routt ML Jr, Agarwal A. Acetabular fractures: definitive treatment and expected outcomes. In: Teague D, Schmidt A, eds. Orthopaedic Knowledge Update: Trauma 4. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2010:323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Scott WW, Fishman EK, Magid D. Acetabular fractures: optimal imaging. Radiology. 1987;165: 537–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005;85:257–268.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sturm R. Increases in morbid obesity in the USA: 2000–2005. Public Health. 2007;121:492–496.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. World Health Organization. BMI classification. Available at: http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage=intro_3.html. Accessed November 28, 2013.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Todd Gebke BSRT for his assistance in obtaining the CT-generated images and Heidi Israel PhD and Eric S. Armbrecht PhD for their help with the statistical analyses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 3635 Vista Avenue, 7th Floor Desloge Towers, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Philip M. Sinatra MD & Berton R. Moed MD

Authors
  1. Philip M. Sinatra MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Berton R. Moed MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berton R. Moed MD.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sinatra, P.M., Moed, B.R. CT-generated Radiographs in Obese Patients With Acetabular Fractures: Can They Be Used in Lieu of Plain Radiographs?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472, 3362–3369 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3697-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3697-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation