Pertrochanteric femoral fractures are common and intramedullary nailing with a proximal femoral nail (PFNA®) is an accepted method for the surgical treatment. Accurate guide wire and subsequent hardware placement in the femoral neck is believed to be essential in order to avoid mechanical failure. Malpositioned implants may lead to rotational or angular malalignment or “cut out” in the femoral neck. Hip and knee arthritis might be a potential long-term consequence. The conventional technique might require multiple guidewire passes, and relies heavily on fluoroscopy. A computer-assisted surgical planning and navigation system based on 2D-fluoroscopy was developed in-house as an intraoperative guidance system for navigated guide wire placement in the femoral neck and head. To support the image acquisition process, the surgeon is supported by a so-called “zero-dose C-arm navigation” module. This tool enables a virtual radiation-free preview of the X-ray images of the femoral neck and head. The aim of this study was to compare PFNA® insertion using this system to conventional implantation technique. We hypothesised that guide wire and subsequent implant placement using our software decreases radiation exposure to the minimum of two images and reduces the number of drilling attempts. Furthermore, accuracy of implant placement in comparison to the conventional method might be improved and operation time shortened. We used 24 identical intact left femoral Sawbones® to simulate reduced pertrochanteric femoral fractures. First, we performed placement of the PFNA® into 12 Sawbones using the conventional fluoroscopic technique (group 1). Secondly, we performed placement of the PFNA® into 12 Sawbones guided by the computer-assisted surgical planning software (group 2). In each group, we first performed open and secondly minimal-invasive intramedullary nailing in six sawbones each. For minimal-invasive guide wire placement, a surgical drape imitated soft tissue coverage. Conventional and navigated technique used a C-arm fluoroscope (Siemens IsoC 3D®, Erlangen, Germany) in conventional 2D mode. Guidewire and subsequent blade placement in the femoral neck was evaluated. We documented: 1: the number of fluoroscopic images; 2: the total number of drilling attempts; 3: implant placement accuracy (3.1. Tip apex distance (TAD); 3.2. visible penetrations of the femoral neck and head; 3.3. blade-corticalis bone distance in the anteroposterior and lateral plane) and the 4: operation time. The number of fluoroscopic single shots taken to achieve an acceptable PFNA®-blade position was reduced significantly with computer-assistance by 71.5% (p<0.001) in the open and by 72,4% (p<0.001) in the minimally invasive technique. In each operation two X-rays for final documentation were taken. The average number of drilling attempts for the computer-guided system was significantly (p<0.05) less than that of the conventional technique in the minimally invasive procedure. The average number of drilling attempts showed no difference between the computer-assisted and conventional techniques in the open procedure. Accuracy of implant placement showed no difference between the computer-assisted and the conventional group. Computer assistance significantly increased the mean operation time for fixation of pertrochanteric femoral fractures with a PFNA® by 79.8% (p<0.001) in the open technique and by 54.4% (p<0.001) in the minimally invasive technique. Use of our computer-guided system for fixation of pertrochanteric femoral fractures by a PFNA® decreases the number of fluoroscopic single shots and of suboptimal guide wire passes while maintaining blade placement accuracy that is equivalent to the conventional technique. Computer-assisted surgery with our system increases the operation time and has just been tested in non-fractured sawbones. Although these results are promising, additional studies including fractured sawbones and cadaver models with extension of the navigation process to all steps of PFNA® introduction and with the goal of reducing the operation time are indispensable before integration of this navigation system into the clinical workflow.
The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures is controversial. The goal of our study was to evaluate whether the psychological factors or the late spinal deformities influence outcome and in particular quality of life following surgical treatment of burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. In a retrospective analysis, we evaluated outcome in 45 patients in whom burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine without neurological deficits were surgically treated between April 2001 and November 2004. For this purpose, patient charts, surgery reports and x-ray images were analyzed consecutively. 29 patients could be examined physically and the outcome could be evaluated with VAS spine core, quality of life according to short-form 36 (SF36) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) with a minimum follow up of 30 months.Introduction
Material and methods
Pedicle screw pullout or loosening is increased in the osteoporotic spine. Recent studies showed a significant increase of pullout forces especially for PMMA-augmentation. With application of conventional viscosity PMMA the risk of cement extravasation is associated. This risk can be reduced by using radiofrequency-responsive, ultrahigh viscosity bone cement. 11 fresh-frozen lumbar vertebral bodies (VB) from 5 cadavers were collected and freed from soft-tissue and ligaments. By DEXA scan (Siemens QDR 2000) 8 VB were identified as severely osteoporotic (BMD 0.8 g/cm3), 3 VB were above this level. Two screws (6×45 mm, WSI-Expertise Inject, Peter Brehm, Weisendorf, Germany) were placed in the pedicles. Through the right screw 3ml of radiofrequency-responsive bone cement (StabiliT® ER2 Bone Cement, DFine, Germany) were injected via hydraulic cement delivery system (StabiliT® Vertebral Augmentation System, DFine, Germany). As control group, left pedicle screws remained uncemented. After potting the whole VB in technical PMMA (Technovit 4004, Heraeus Kulzer, Germany) axial pullout test was performed by a material testing device (Zwick-Roell, Zmart-Pro, Ulm, Germany).Introduction
Method