Influence of the Fluoroscopy Setting towards the Patient When Identifying the MPFL Insertion Point

Standard

Influence of the Fluoroscopy Setting towards the Patient When Identifying the MPFL Insertion Point. / Korthaus, Alexander; Dust, Tobias; Berninger, Markus; Frings, Jannik; Krause, Matthias; Frosch, Karl-Heinz; Thürig, Grégoire.

in: DIAGNOSTICS, Jahrgang 12, Nr. 6, 1427, 09.06.2022.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/ZeitungSCORING: ZeitschriftenaufsatzForschungBegutachtung

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{6fb78be142c849d5ad62ac560a5ac43c,
title = "Influence of the Fluoroscopy Setting towards the Patient When Identifying the MPFL Insertion Point",
abstract = "(1) The malposition of the femoral tunnel in medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction can lead to length changes in the MPFL graft, and an increase in medial peak pressure in the patellofemoral joint. It is the cause of 36% of all MPFL revisions. According to Sch{\"o}ttle et al., the creation of the drill canal should be performed in a strictly lateral radiograph. In this study, it was hypothesized that positioning the image receptor to the knee during intraoperative fluoroscopy would lead to a relevant mispositioning of the femoral tunnel, despite an always adjusted true-lateral view. (2) A total of 10 distal femurs were created from 10 knee CT scans using a 3D printer. First, true-lateral fluoroscopies were taken from lateral to medial at a 25 cm (LM25) distance from the image receptor, then from medial to lateral at a 5 cm (ML5) distance. Using the method from Sch{\"o}ttle, the femoral origin of the MPFL was determined when the femur was positioned distally, proximally, superiorly, and inferiorly to the image receptor. (3) The comparison of the selected MPFL insertion points according to Sch{\"o}ttle et al. revealed that the initial determination of the point in the ML5 view resulted in a distal and posterior shift of the point by 5.3 mm ± 1.2 mm when the point was checked in the LM25 view. In the opposite case, when the MPFL insertion was initially determined in the LM25 view and then redetermined in the ML5 view, there was a shift of 4.8 mm ± 2.2 mm anteriorly and proximally. The further positioning of the femur (distal, proximal, superior, and inferior) showed no relevant influence. (4) For fluoroscopic identification of the femoral MPFL, according to Sch{\"o}ttle et al., attention should be paid to the position of the fluoroscopy in addition to a true-lateral view.",
author = "Alexander Korthaus and Tobias Dust and Markus Berninger and Jannik Frings and Matthias Krause and Karl-Heinz Frosch and Gr{\'e}goire Th{\"u}rig",
year = "2022",
month = jun,
day = "9",
doi = "10.3390/diagnostics12061427",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "DIAGNOSTICS",
issn = "2075-4418",
publisher = "MDPI AG",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of the Fluoroscopy Setting towards the Patient When Identifying the MPFL Insertion Point

AU - Korthaus, Alexander

AU - Dust, Tobias

AU - Berninger, Markus

AU - Frings, Jannik

AU - Krause, Matthias

AU - Frosch, Karl-Heinz

AU - Thürig, Grégoire

PY - 2022/6/9

Y1 - 2022/6/9

N2 - (1) The malposition of the femoral tunnel in medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction can lead to length changes in the MPFL graft, and an increase in medial peak pressure in the patellofemoral joint. It is the cause of 36% of all MPFL revisions. According to Schöttle et al., the creation of the drill canal should be performed in a strictly lateral radiograph. In this study, it was hypothesized that positioning the image receptor to the knee during intraoperative fluoroscopy would lead to a relevant mispositioning of the femoral tunnel, despite an always adjusted true-lateral view. (2) A total of 10 distal femurs were created from 10 knee CT scans using a 3D printer. First, true-lateral fluoroscopies were taken from lateral to medial at a 25 cm (LM25) distance from the image receptor, then from medial to lateral at a 5 cm (ML5) distance. Using the method from Schöttle, the femoral origin of the MPFL was determined when the femur was positioned distally, proximally, superiorly, and inferiorly to the image receptor. (3) The comparison of the selected MPFL insertion points according to Schöttle et al. revealed that the initial determination of the point in the ML5 view resulted in a distal and posterior shift of the point by 5.3 mm ± 1.2 mm when the point was checked in the LM25 view. In the opposite case, when the MPFL insertion was initially determined in the LM25 view and then redetermined in the ML5 view, there was a shift of 4.8 mm ± 2.2 mm anteriorly and proximally. The further positioning of the femur (distal, proximal, superior, and inferior) showed no relevant influence. (4) For fluoroscopic identification of the femoral MPFL, according to Schöttle et al., attention should be paid to the position of the fluoroscopy in addition to a true-lateral view.

AB - (1) The malposition of the femoral tunnel in medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction can lead to length changes in the MPFL graft, and an increase in medial peak pressure in the patellofemoral joint. It is the cause of 36% of all MPFL revisions. According to Schöttle et al., the creation of the drill canal should be performed in a strictly lateral radiograph. In this study, it was hypothesized that positioning the image receptor to the knee during intraoperative fluoroscopy would lead to a relevant mispositioning of the femoral tunnel, despite an always adjusted true-lateral view. (2) A total of 10 distal femurs were created from 10 knee CT scans using a 3D printer. First, true-lateral fluoroscopies were taken from lateral to medial at a 25 cm (LM25) distance from the image receptor, then from medial to lateral at a 5 cm (ML5) distance. Using the method from Schöttle, the femoral origin of the MPFL was determined when the femur was positioned distally, proximally, superiorly, and inferiorly to the image receptor. (3) The comparison of the selected MPFL insertion points according to Schöttle et al. revealed that the initial determination of the point in the ML5 view resulted in a distal and posterior shift of the point by 5.3 mm ± 1.2 mm when the point was checked in the LM25 view. In the opposite case, when the MPFL insertion was initially determined in the LM25 view and then redetermined in the ML5 view, there was a shift of 4.8 mm ± 2.2 mm anteriorly and proximally. The further positioning of the femur (distal, proximal, superior, and inferior) showed no relevant influence. (4) For fluoroscopic identification of the femoral MPFL, according to Schöttle et al., attention should be paid to the position of the fluoroscopy in addition to a true-lateral view.

U2 - 10.3390/diagnostics12061427

DO - 10.3390/diagnostics12061427

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 35741237

VL - 12

JO - DIAGNOSTICS

JF - DIAGNOSTICS

SN - 2075-4418

IS - 6

M1 - 1427

ER -