The accuracy and precision of radiostereometric analysis in monitoring tibial plateau fractures.
OBJECTIVE
The application of radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to monitor stability of tibial plateau fractures during healing is both limited and yet to be validated. We therefore evaluated the accuracy and precision of RSA in a tibial plateau fracture model.


METHODS
Combinations of 3, 6, and 9 markers in a lateral condyle fracture were evaluated with reference to 6 proximal tibial arrangements. Translation and rotation accuracy was assessed with displacement-controlled stages, while precision was assessed with dynamic double examinations. A comparison of error according to marker number and arrangement was completed with 2-way ANOVA models.


RESULTS
The results were improved using more tantalum markers in each segment. In the fracture fragment, marker scatter in all axes was achieved by a circumferential arrangement (medial, anterior, and lateral) of the tantalum markers above the fixation devices. Markers placed on either side of the tibial tuberosity and in the medial aspect of the fracture split represented the proximal tibial reference segment best. Using 6 markers with this distribution in each segment, the translation accuracy (root mean square error) was less than 37 mum in all axes. The precision (95% confidence interval) was less than +/- 16 mum in all axes in vitro. Rotation, tested around the x-axis, had an accuracy of less than 0.123 degrees and a precision of +/- 0.024 degrees.


CONCLUSIONS
RSA is highly accurate and precise in the assessment of lateral tibial plateau fracture fragment movement. The validation of our center's RSA system provides evidence to support future clinical RSA fracture studies.
Solomon
Lucian B
LB
Discipline of Orthopaedics and Trauma, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. bogdansolomon@mac.com
Stevenson
Aaron W
AW
Callary
Stuart A
SA
Sullivan
Thomas R
TR
Howie
Donald W
DW
Chehade
Mellick J
MJ
D017102:Fracture Healing / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D010780:Photogrammetry / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011859:Radiography; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012399:Rotation; D013978:Tibial Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000503:physiopathology*
J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(10 Suppl):S1-133
18277234
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Sep;22(8 Suppl):S96-105
18753897
J Biomech. 2004 Apr;37(4):487-93
14996560
Int Orthop. 1994 Jun;18(3):131-4
7927960
J Orthop Res. 2004 May;22(3):659-64
15099649
J Biomech. 2006;39(9):1641-50
15990104
Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Feb;72(1):57-61
11327415
J Biomech. 1993 Dec;26(12):1473-7
8308052
Acta Orthop Scand. 1989 Aug;60(4):491-503
2683567
J Orthop Res. 2001 Nov;19(6):1162-7
11781019
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jul;467(7):1839-47
19184262
J Biomech. 2000 Dec;33(12):1593-9
11006383
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Oct;87(10):2323-34
16203901
Acta Orthop Scand. 2000 Aug;71(4):403-8
11028891
J Orthop Res. 2002 Jul;20(4):688-95
12168656
J Biomech. 2000 Apr;33(4):493-8
10768399
Scand J Surg. 2006;95(2):119-27
16821655
J Orthop Sci. 2004;9(1):66-75
14767707
J Orthop Res. 2005 Mar;23(2):481-8
15734266
Scand J Surg. 2003;92(3):215-9
14582545
J Biomech. 2008;41(4):907-11
18096170
Acta Orthop. 2005 Aug;76(4):563-72
16195075
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Jan-Feb;(138):94-104
445923