Abstract
Purpose
To determine the ideal view(s) and the minimum number of intraoperative fluoroscopic views required to rule out any intra-articular screw violation in acetabular fractures fixation.
Methods
This study was conducted using a series of fluoroscopic examinations of pelvic synthetic models with screws positioned in different planes around the acetabulum. Ten screws were placed in the synthetic pelvis models in different planes of the acetabulum. Seven views were taken for each screw. Radiographic images were evaluated by 14 orthopaedic surgeons who were asked to assess joint violation and the view(s) required for assessment.
Results
The observers’ accuracy rate in identifying joint violation was 82.1% for the anterior part of the anterior column and the superior part of the posterior column, 89.3% for the posterior part of the anterior column and the inferior part of the posterior column, and 92.9% for the quadrilateral plate. The sensitivity was 100% for the anterior and posterior parts of the anterior column and the inferior part of the posterior column, 87.5% for the superior part of the posterior column, and 85.7% for the quadrilateral plate. The specificity was 100% for the quadrilateral plate, 80% for the superior part of the posterior column and the posterior part of the anterior column, 78.6% for the inferior part of the posterior column, and 66.7% for the anterior part of the anterior column. There was a strong overall interobserver and intra-observer agreement with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.709 and 0.86, respectively.
Conclusions
This study confirms the hypothesis that in a concave surface/joint fixation, such as the acetabulum, the probability of joint violation is unlikely if there is no evidence of it within a single fluoroscopic view. In acetabulum fracture fixation with a screw violating the joint, the screw’s presence was evident within the joint space in all fluoroscopic views. However, the absence of joint violation in one fluoroscopic view was adequate to rule out joint penetration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Acetabulum fractures pose a significant challenge for orthopaedic surgeons due to their diverse range of injury patterns. These fractures often necessitate surgical fixation, particularly when displacement occurs or when the weight-bearing area is involved [1, 2]. However, the operative management, encompassing both open reduction and percutaneous fixation, mandates a careful intraoperative radiological evaluation using sufficient and accurate fluoroscopic views [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Despite the comprehensive literature describing the techniques of acetabular fracture fixation, there is still a lack of consensus on the optimal view(s) and minimum number of radiographic views required to rule out intra-articular screw penetration [9,10,11,12,13].
Therefore, this study aimed to determine the ideal number and specific fluoroscopic view(s) required to confirm the absence of intra-articular screw penetration in acetabular fracture fixation. Additionally, the study tested the hypothesis that for concave surfaces such as the acetabulum, the absence of screw penetration in a single view would suffice to eliminate concerns of joint violation.
Materials and methods
Study design
This experimental study was conducted to determine the minimum number and optimal intra-operative fluoroscopic view(s) required to confirm the absence of intra-articular screw penetration in acetabular fracture fixation. The study adhered to the guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) [14].
Study setting
This study was approved by the institutional review board (MRC-01–19) and was conducted at a level I trauma centre. Anatomical synthetic pelvic bone models were used in the study, with ten screws inserted in various locations around the acetabulum. Five of the screws were inserted with intra-articular penetration, while the other half were without. Seven pelvic fluoroscopic views were obtained for each screw to evaluate the radiographic screw position and correlate it with the actual pelvic model screw location, mimicking the intraoperative conditions during periacetabular screw insertion in acetabular fracture fixation.
In this study, a pair of identical synthetic anatomical pelvic models (as illustrated in Fig. 1) was used. Drill holes were made at different positions around the acetabulum using a 2.5-mm drill bit. This encompassed two drill holes in the anterior and posterior parts of the anterior column, two drill holes in the superior and inferior parts of the posterior column, and one drill hole in the quadrilateral plate. A total of ten 3.5-mm screws were inserted into the pre-drilled holes and labeled numerically in an ascending order (Table 1). Five screws were placed intra-articularly, while the remaining five were without intra-articular penetration. Specifically, intra-articular screws were labelled with odd numbers, whereas those without intra-articular penetration were labelled with even numbers. The locations of the screws were as follows: the anterior and posterior parts of the anterior column and the superior and inferior parts of the posterior column and the quadrilateral plate (Fig. 1).
The synthetic pelvic models were then positioned on a radiolucent operative table and seven fluoroscopic radiographic views (anteroposterior, obturator oblique, iliac oblique, obturator inlet, obturator outlet, iliac inlet, and iliac outlet) were taken for the pelvic models using a mobile C-arm fluoroscopy machine (Fig. 2).
To ensure consistency and accuracy, all the fluoroscopic views were taken by a certified radiographic technician using a standard radiographic technique with the same machine. This was vital to maintain proper calibrations of the views’ angles. The radiographic images were saved electronically on the primary investigator’s computer, and only two authors had access to the coded data.
After preparing and coding the data, the images and questionnaires were electronically sent to a group of 14 evaluators, comprising orthopedic trauma fellows and consultants. The task was to evaluate the seven obtained fluoroscopic views for each screw to determine the presence or absence of intra-articular screw violation. This process was conducted independently and blindly, with the images and questionnaires sent electronically to each evaluator on two separate occasions, one month apart. The results were correlated with the actual position of the screws in the pelvic models to measure accuracy.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Ten synthetic pelvic models were required, with screws inserted at various locations around the acetabulum and seven fluoroscopic views taken for each screw position. Incomplete questionnaires were excluded.
Data collection
The collected baseline variables comprised the parts of the acetabulum column, screw position, and the specific fluoroscopic radiographic views. The primary outcomes were the minimum number and most effective intra-operative fluoroscopic views for identifying intra-articular screw penetration.
Radiographic assessment
Fourteen independent observers evaluated the radiographs. Before the assessment sessions, the first and senior authors conducted a training session to all observers. The training focused on the use of the fluoroscopic radiographic views, assessment of acetabular screws, and identifying intra-articular screw violation.
The observers were instructed to evaluate the screws’ positions in the pelvic models using the fluoroscopic views. Each participating surgeon was presented with two questions for each image: (1) whether there was intra-articular screw penetration, to which the surgeon responded with a “yes” or a “no.” (2) Based on the previous question, they were asked to identify the view(s) needed to answer the first question.
After 1 month, a similar session was conducted for the same group of observers. The observers did not have access to the radiographs during the interval between the two sessions. Figure 2 displays examples of selected radiographs showcasing screws positioned in different configurations.
Statistical analysis
The data was analyzed for accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for radiographs in determining the presence of screw penetration and the location of screw penetration. Interobserver reliability was determined based on a Kappa (k) statistic. Sensitivity refers to the ability of a test to detect disease when it is present. Specificity is the ability of a test to detect the absence of disease when it is not present. For the purpose of this study, sensitivity refers to the proportion of the pelvic model with intra-articular screw penetration accurately identified by the radiographic views; specificity is the proportion of those without intra-articular screw penetration correctly identified. Accuracy is a summary measure of the diagnostic correctness, consisting of both the positive and negative tests that were correctly interpreted. Interobserver and intra-observer agreement on screw penetration as compared with the reality was assessed using kappa statistic or ICC which measures agreement between multiple observers, comparing actual agreement to the agreement that would be expected due to chance. The interrater and intra-rater reliability analysis using the Kappa statistic was performed to determine consistency among reviewers about joint violation in screw position. The 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the following formula: Estimate + / − 1.96 SE. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) single rating two-way random effect model was applied to find the overall interrater and intra-rater agreement. Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium (for Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, NPV).
Results
Characteristics of pelvic models and observers’ responses
A pair of identical synthetic pelvic models were used with ten screws inserted in various locations around the acetabulum. Among these screws, five were placed violating the joint, while the other five were placed in the acetabulum avoiding joint penetration. The details of the pelvic models and radiographic views are presented in Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 2.
A total of 140 responses were collected for each pelvic view of all screws, comprising 70 responses for the extra-articular screws and 70 for the intra-articular ones. These responses were obtained from 14 orthopaedic trauma surgeons, each of whom evaluated 70 images.
Extra-articular screw position
Regarding the extra-articular screws, the observers exhibited an overall accuracy rate of 91.4% (n = 64). Screw number 8 had an accuracy rate of 100%, while screws number 2, 4, and 10 had an accuracy rate of 92.85%. The lowest accuracy rate was recorded for screw number 6, with a rate of 85.7% (see Table 2).
Intra-articular screw position
Regarding the intra-articular screws, the observers exhibited an overall accuracy rate of 98.57% (n = 69). The accuracy rate was 100% screw numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7. However, screw number 9 had an accuracy rate of 92.85%. All views were required by the observers to determine the presence of intra-articular penetration (Table 3).
Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and reliability
When evaluating screw position in relation to the hip joint, the overall accuracy rate for both surveys was 100%. The accuracy rate of distinguishing intra- and extra-articular screws was 82.1% for the anterior part of the anterior column and the superior part of the posterior column, 89.3% for the posterior part of the anterior column and the inferior part of the posterior column, and 92.9% for the quadrilateral plate. The interrater sensitivity was 100% for the anterior and posterior parts of the anterior column and the inferior part of the posterior column. However, the sensitivity was 87.5% for the superior part of the posterior column and 85.7% for the quadrilateral plate.
On the other hand, the interrater specificity was 100% for the quadrilateral plate and 80% for the superior part of the posterior column and the posterior part of the anterior column. However, the specificity was 78.6% for the inferior part of the posterior column and 66.7% for the anterior part of the anterior column (Table 4 summarizes the sensitivity, specificity of screw position, predictive values (positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)) and accuracy for the detection of intra-articular screw penetration using radiographs).
There was a moderate interrater agreement for the anterior part of the anterior column (0.65) and superior part of the posterior column (0.61). There was substantial agreement for the posterior part of the anterior column (0.78) and inferior part of the posterior column (0.79) with a statistically significant P-value of < 0.01. However, an outstanding agreement was observed for the quadrilateral plate (0.86) with a statistically significant P-value of < 0.01. Moreover, there was an outstanding intra-rater agreement for all parts of the acetabulum (Table 4).
The overall interobserver and intra-observer agreements were measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), which was found to be 0.709 and 0.86, respectively. This indicates a strong agreement on screw position between the ratings made by different reviewers based on radiographs readings.
Further analysis was conducted to identify the most effective radiographic view to verify joint clearance for each screw position. It was evident that the utilization of the obturator outlet view had accuracy rates of 78.5% and 61.5% in determining joint clearance in the anterior and posterior parts of the anterior column, respectively. For the iliac oblique view and iliac inlet views, 63.6% and 78.5% of the reviewers were accurate in identifying joint clearance in the superior and inferior parts of the posterior column, respectively. The accuracy rate was 38.5% when considering screw positions in the quadrilateral plate. Significant disparities were detected in the responders’ distribution of the ideal radiographic for the assessment of joint clearance (P < 0.001) (Table 5).
Discussion
Intra-articular screw placement is considered a major complication of acetabular surgery. Ensuring the absence of hip joint violation is crucial, and the radiographic assessment such screws presents a substantial challenge when evaluating acetabular fixation [15, 16].
This study revealed that in cases where a screw violates the joint, all seven radiographic views consistently show the screw, or part of it, within the joint space. This demonstrated a relatively high accuracy and agreement among the reviewers. It should be noted that a single radiographic view might be sufficient to dismiss the possibility of joint violation. A challenge arises when screws are positioned in close proximity to the joint during acetabular fixation. This is particularly true as certain views might indicate joint, even when it is not. Therefore, when dealing with concave surfaces, it is crucial to use a single specific view to guarantee joint clearance. Screw number 10, positioned outside the joint but in close proximity to the medial wall of the acetabulum, was shown violating the joint in all radiographic views except a single one, the anteroposterior view.
This study confirms the hypothesis that when placing a screw aiming towards a concave articular surface, a single fluoroscopic view is needed to establish its extra-articular placement. Based on previous studies, the acetabulum is conceptualized as a sphere, while the screw is viewed as a line. When the line and sphere intersect, it is challenging to identify a projection angle that visually separates them. On the other hand, when the sphere and line do not intersect, at least one view will clearly show that they are separated, despite some projections indicating possible penetration [16, 17]. However, resorting to repeated fluoroscopies to locate the intersected direction is not desirable, and a precise acetabular view depending on screw’s location is recommended to reduce radiation exposure.
By viewing the acetabulum as a sphere and the screw as a linear object, the fluoroscope can identify an imaging projection where the acetabulum and screw are distinct from each other. Occasionally, when observing through a sphere, the screw might seemingly reside within the sphere, even if it is not the case. However, if any single view demonstrated a clear demarcation between the sphere (acetabulum) and the screw, it signifies their lack of contact [18].
Understanding pelvic AP, oblique and combined views increased the accuracy of evaluating screws’ trajectories and increased the safety of acetabular fixation [19,20,21]. The findings of this study can be reflected in clinical practice by providing a better judgment on acetabular screw penetration and reducing the radiological exposure.
Several studies have described the ideal views to rule out peri-acetabular screw penetrations [15, 16, 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. In their retrospective review, Lim et al. used postoperative CT scans to assess infra-acetabular screw penetration in posterior wall fixation of the acetabulum. Their findings indicated that the outlet view is the most reliable view to confirm joint clearance [15]. This type of screw corresponds to screw numbers 9 and 10 in this study. The results of this study showed that AP view could reliably confirm acetabular clearance, although the outlet view was not included in this investigation. As this study is based on anatomical models and real-time experiments, our findings are more consistent with the acetabular anatomy and easier to perform intra-operatively, especially when performing the surgeries in lateral position. Nevertheless, Lin et al.’s anatomical specimen study added the lateral acetabular view to the conventional views in evaluating posterior wall fixation [16]. While this addition could be a valuable during surgery, the findings of this study showed that a single iliac oblique view can be sufficient.
Regarding the evaluation of intra-articular screw penetration in the anterior column and wall, it was evident that surgeons exhibited a higher accuracy rate in identifying joint clearance utilizing the obturator oblique (71.4% accuracy) and obturator oblique/outlet views (78.5% accuracy). These findings are consistent with previous reports in the literature [8, 16]. It is recommended to avoid utilizing the iliac oblique and iliac oblique/outlet or inlet views when evaluating the joint in anterior column screws. As reported by Norris et al. [17], interpretation of these views in isolation superimposes the screw trajectory with the hip joint, creating the illusion of joint violation regardless of its actual position in relation to the acetabular dome. Furthermore, the responses associated with the iliac oblique and iliac oblique/outlet views demonstrated a considerable level of uncertainty.
Regarding the evaluation of intra-articular screw penetration in the posterior column and wall, surgeons demonstrated the highest rate of accuracy in evaluating joint clearance utilizing the iliac oblique (63.6% accuracy) and iliac oblique/inlet views (78.5% accuracy).
Carmack et al. determined in a cadaveric study that fluoroscopy and computed tomography share equal accuracy in identifying intra-articular screw penetration [23]. They further recommended revising posterior acetabular wall screws when intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging does not confirm extra-articular placement. In a separate study by Rashidifard et al., the positioning of lag screw fixation in posterior wall acetabulum fractures was evaluated [24]. By comparing intraoperative fluoroscopic views—melding iliac oblique with either inlet or outlet tilt—with postoperative CT imaging, they determined that the fluoroscopic results were consistent with CT findings. This consistency was particularly notable when screws were located less than 5 mm from the articular surface. Consequently, Rashidifard et al. asserted that intraoperative fluoroscopy is a dependable technique for the accurate placement of posterior wall lag screws, minimizing the likelihood of intra-articular screw misplacement.
Limitations
There are several limitations to acknowledge in this study. Firstly, as the study was conducted on pelvic models, the generalizability of the findings to real-life scenarios might be restricted. Secondly, the results obtained are based on a normally shaped acetabulum, necessitating caution when dealing with anatomical variations. Thirdly, the impact of soft tissue on image quality and radiographic penetration was not accounted for. Additionally, the models did not include fractures, as well as any extra plates and screws, which could potentially affect the surgeon’s interpretation of fluoroscopic images.
Conclusion
This study confirms the hypothesis that in a concave surface/joint fixation, such as the acetabulum, the probability of joint violation is unlikely if there is no evidence of it within a single fluoroscopic view. In acetabulum fracture fixation with a screw violating the joint, the screw’s presence was evident within the joint space in all fluoroscopic views. However, the absence of joint violation in one fluoroscopic view was adequate to rule out joint penetration.
References
Parker PJ, Copeland C (1997) Percutaneous fluoroscopic screw fixation of acetabular fractures. Injury 28(9–10):597–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(97)00097-1
Gay SB, Sistrom C, Wang GJ, Kahler DA, Boman T, McHugh N, Goitz HT (1992) Percutaneous screw fixation of acetabular fractures with CT guidance: preliminary results of a new technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158(4):819–822. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.158.4.1546599
Starr AJ, Jones AL, Reinert CM, Borer DS (2001) Preliminary results and complications following limited open reduction and percutaneous screw fixation of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. Injury. 32 Suppl 1:SA45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(01)00060-2
Mudawi A, Moghamis IS, Alzobi O, Babikir E, Abdelsalam S, Samhadaneh MA (2022) Bilateral pelvic crescent fracture combined with left acetabular fracture: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 99:107701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2022.107701
Alzobi OZ, Alborno Y, Toubasi A, Derbas J, Kayali H, Nasef H, Hantouly AT, Mudawi A, Mahmoud S, Ahmed G (2023) Complications of conventional percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation of traumatic pelvic ring injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03543-9
Routt ML Jr, Nork SE, Mills WJ (2000) Percutaneous fixation of pelvic ring disruptions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 375:15–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200006000-00004
Starr AJ, Reinert CM, Jones AL (1998) Percutaneous fixation of the columns of the acetabulum: a new technique. J Orthop Trauma 12(1):51–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199801000-00009
Bishop JA, Routt ML Jr (2012) Osseous fixation pathways in pelvic and acetabular fracture surgery: osteology, radiology, and clinical applications. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72(6):1502–1509. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e318246efe5
Sen RK, Tripathy SK, Aggarwal S, Goyal T, Meena DS, Mahapatra S (2012) A safe technique of anterior column lag screw fixation in acetabular fractures. Int Orthop 36(11):2333–2340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1661-z
Kaempffe FA, Bone LB, Border JR (1991) Open reduction and internal fixation of acetabular fractures: heterotopic ossification and other complications of treatment. J Orthop Trauma 5(4):439–445. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199112000-00009
Reinert CM, Bosse MJ, Poka A, Schacherer T, Brumback RJ, Burgess AR (1988) A modified extensile exposure for the treatment of complex or malunited acetabular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70(3):329–337. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198870030-00003
Dienstknecht T, Müller M, Sellei R, Nerlich M, Müller FJ, Fuechtmeier B, Berner A (2013) Screw placement in percutaneous acetabular surgery: gender differences of anatomical landmarks in a cadaveric study. Int Orthop 37(4):673–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1740-1
Guimarães JAM, Martin MP 3rd, da Silva FR, Duarte MEL, Cavalcanti ADS, Machado JAP, Mauffrey C, Rojas D (2019) The obturator oblique and iliac oblique/outlet views predict most accurately the adequate position of an anterior column acetabular screw. Int Orthop 43(5):1205–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3989-5
Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL (2011) Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64(1):96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002
Lim EJ, Sakong S, Choi W, Oh JK, Cho JW (2021) Which radiograph is most accurate for assessing hip joint penetration in infra-acetabular screw placement? Medicine (Baltimore) 100(24):e26392. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026392
Lin Z, Guo J, Dong W, Zhao K, Hou Z, Zhang Y (2019) Acetabular lateral view: effective fluoroscopic imaging to evaluate screw penetration intraoperatively. Med Sci Monit 25:5953–5960. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.915906
Norris BL, Hahn DH, Bosse MJ et al (1999) Intraoperative fluoroscopy to evaluate fracture reduction and hardware placement during acetabular surgery. J Orthop Trauma 13(6):414–417. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199908000-00004
Sridhar MS, Hunter MD, Colello MJ (2022) Correction to: Periarticular screws: what’s in and what’s out of the joint? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23(1):466. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04928-9
Mudawi A, Salameh M, Ahmed AF, Mahmoud S, Alhammoud A, Abousamhadaneh M, Ahmed G (2022) The reliability of postoperative radiographic matta grading for quality of reduction of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 36(6):297–300. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002316
Bozzio AE, Wydra FB, Mitchell JJ, Ackerson RM, Mauffrey C (2014) Percutaneous fixation of anterior and posterior column acetabular fractures. Orthopedics 37(10):675–678. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20140924-04
Wang X, Ran G, Chen X, Jia H, Liu Z, Sun C, Ma L, Hou Z (2021) (2021) Obturator oblique and pubic ramus inlet views can better guide the insertion of an anterior column acetabular screw. Orthop Surg 13(3):1086–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12943
Wilson JM, Pflederer JA, Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Reimer NB (2021) Intraoperative radiographic detection of intrapelvic acetabular screw penetration: lessons learned from our trauma colleagues. Arthroplast Today 15(8):226–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.02.011
Carmack DB, Moed BR, McCarroll K et al (2001) Accuracy of detecting screw penetration of the acetabulum with intraoperative fluoroscopy and computer tomography. JBJS 83-A:1370–1375
Rashidifard C, Boudreau J, Revak T (2020) Accuracy of posterior wall acetabular fracture lag screw placement: correlation between intraoperative fluoroscopy and postoperative computer tomography. J Orthop Trauma 34(12):650–655. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001879
Lim EJ, Sakong S, Son WS, Kim H, Cho JW, Oh JK (2021) Usefulness of the obturator hook technique for guiding the initial trajectory control in infra-acetabular screw placement. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 29(1):2309499021996838. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499021996838
Yu K, Zhou R, Gao S, Liang A, Yang M, Yang H (2022) The placement of percutaneous retrograde acetabular posterior column screw based on imaging anatomical study of acetabular posterior column corridor. J Orthop Surg Res 17(1):492. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03347-3
Meesters AML, Assink N, Ten Duis K, Fennema EM, Kraeima J, Witjes MJH, de Vries JPM, Stirler VMA, IJpma FFA. (2021) Accuracy of patient-specific drilling guides in acetabular fracture surgery: a human cadaver study. J Pers Med 11(8):763. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080763
Lu Q, Zhou R, Gao S, Liang A, Yang M, Yang H (2021) CT-scan based anatomical study as a guidance for infra-acetabular screw placement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22(1):576
Ma NF, Yang M, Tao ZS, Li TL (2021) [Measurement of the maximum corridor parameters of infra acetabular screw and evaluation of the feasibility of screw insertion by digital analysis]. Zhongguo Gu Shang 34(3):220–5. Chinese. https://doi.org/10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2021.03.006
Yoshida M, Sato K, Ando T, Haruta M, Iwase H. (2020) Analysis of the infra-acetabular corridor: sex-specific differences in the secure area and insertion angle in infra-acetabular screw placement. Fujita Med J. 6(2):27–30. https://doi.org/10.20407/fmj.2019-014
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors made a substantial contribution to the manuscript. AE, AH, MA, OZ, and GA performed the literature review. AE, MA, and GA prepared the synthetic pelvic model and the radiographic views. AE performed the statistical analysis. AE and AH extracted and prepared the data. AE, AH, OZ, and GA wrote the manuscript. GA supervised the whole work and helped preparing the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Level of evidence: Level IV, diagnostic study
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Elmhiregh, A., Hantouly, A.T., Alzoubi, O. et al. The optimal fluoroscopic views to rule out intra-articular screw penetration during acetabular fracture fixation. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 48, 243–252 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-06002-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-06002-6