Learning Acetabular Fracture Classification using a Three‐Dimensional Interactive Software: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Acetabular fractures are a real challenge for junior doctors as well as experienced orthopedic surgeons. Correct fracture classification is crucial for appreciating the fracture type, surgical planning, and predicting prognosis. Although three‐dimensional (3D) tutorial is believed to improve the understanding of the complex anatomy structure, there have been few applications and randomized controlled trials to confirm it in orthopedics. This study aims to develop a 3D interactive software system for teaching acetabular fracture classification and evaluate its efficacy. Participants were randomly but evenly allocated into either the experimental group (who learned the acetabular fracture classification using a 3D software) or the control group (who used a traditional two‐dimensional [2D] tutorial). Both groups were then tasked to classify 10 acetabular fractures and complete a five‐point Likert scale on their satisfaction of each learning modality. To calculate significance (P < 0.05), independent t‐test was used for normally distributed data whereas Mann‐Whitney U test for non‐normally distributed data. The experimental group significantly outperformed the control group (t (28) = 2.526, P = 0.017) with identifying correct acetabular fracture classification. Moreover, Likert scale score in the experimental group was also significantly higher than in the control group (Z = 2.477, P = 0.013). This 3D classification software has objectively and subjectively showed an advantage over the traditional 2D tutorial, resulting in an improved classification accuracy and higher Likert scale score. The 3D software has the potential to improve both clinical knowledge as well as identifying correct patient management in orthopedics.

[1]  P. Beaulé,et al.  Letournel classification for acetabular fractures. Assessment of interobserver and intraobserver reliability. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  R. Kickuth,et al.  3D CT versus axial helical CT versus conventional tomography in the classification of acetabular fractures: a ROC analysis. , 2002, Clinical radiology.

[3]  David L. Helfet,et al.  Assessment of articular fragment displacement in acetabular fractures: A comparison of computerized tomography and plain radiographs , 2002 .

[4]  James Birt,et al.  An enriched multimedia eBook application to facilitate learning of anatomy , 2014, Anatomical sciences education.

[5]  Lutz-Peter Nolte,et al.  Virtual 3D planning of acetabular fracture reduction , 2008, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[6]  David B Pettigrew,et al.  Virtual preoperative measurement and surgical manipulation of sagittal spinal alignment using a novel research and educational software program. , 2010, Neurosurgical focus.

[7]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[8]  Peggy Brickman,et al.  Best Practices for Measuring Students’ Attitudes toward Learning Science , 2013, CBE life sciences education.

[9]  C. Krettek,et al.  Webbasiertes E-Learning-Tool in der unfallchirurgischen Lehre , 2007, Der Unfallchirurg.

[10]  J. Madsen,et al.  Acetabular fracture assessment in four different pelvic trauma centers: have the Judet views become superfluous? , 2015, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[11]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Interobserver agreement for Letournel acetabular fracture classification with multidetector CT: are standard Judet radiographs necessary? , 2006, Radiology.

[12]  G. Egan,et al.  Enhanced brain connectivity in math-gifted adolescents: An fMRI study using mental rotation , 2010, Cognitive neuroscience.

[13]  N. Chiavaroli,et al.  Does spatial ability help the learning of anatomy in a biomedical science course? , 2014, Anatomical sciences education.

[14]  Boonyarak Visutipol,et al.  Evaluation of Letournel and Judet Classification of Acetabular Fracture with Plain Radiographs and Three-Dimensional Computerized Tomographic Scan , 2000, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[15]  M. Goodale,et al.  Active manual control of object views facilitates visual recognition , 1999, Current Biology.

[16]  Sonya E Van Nuland,et al.  The anatomy of E‐Learning tools: Does software usability influence learning outcomes? , 2016, Anatomical sciences education.

[17]  J JUDET,et al.  [FRACTURES OF THE ACETABULUM]. , 1964, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[18]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  Comparison of a gross anatomy laboratory to online anatomy software for teaching anatomy , 2016, Anatomical sciences education.

[19]  D. Amanatullah,et al.  Acetabular fractures: what radiologists should know and how 3D CT can aid classification. , 2015, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[20]  I. Suramo,et al.  Multiplanar and 3d CT of acetabular fractures , 1998, Acta radiologica.

[21]  D. Ostatníková,et al.  Mental rotation in intellectually gifted boys is affected by the androgen receptor CAG repeat polymorphism , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  John H. Harris,et al.  Acetabular fractures revisited: part 1, redefinition of the Letournel anterior column. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  L. Audigé,et al.  Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. , 2007, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[24]  K. Malizos,et al.  Anatomy learning from prosected cadaveric specimens versus three-dimensional software: A comparative study of upper limb anatomy. , 2018, Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft.

[25]  Stefanie M Attardi,et al.  Design and implementation of an online systemic human anatomy course with laboratory , 2015, Anatomical sciences education.

[26]  Roy Eagleson,et al.  Educational software usability: Artifact or Design? , 2017, Anatomical sciences education.

[27]  John H. Harris,et al.  Acetabular fractures revisited: part 2, a new CT-based classification. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  C. Hurson,et al.  Rapid prototyping in the assessment, classification and preoperative planning of acetabular fractures. , 2007, Injury.

[29]  S. Jamieson Likert scales: how to (ab)use them , 2004, Medical education.

[30]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[31]  D. Voyer,et al.  Motor expertise and performance in spatial tasks: A meta-analysis. , 2017, Human movement science.

[32]  J JUDET,et al.  FRACTURES OF THE ACETABULUM: CLASSIFICATION AND SURGICAL APPROACHES FOR OPEN REDUCTION. PRELIMINARY REPORT. , 1964, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[33]  Enrico Vezzetti,et al.  Design and implementation of 3D Web-based interactive medical devices for educational purposes , 2017 .

[35]  Jason Halvorson,et al.  Value of 3-D CT in classifying acetabular fractures during orthopedic residency training. , 2012, Orthopedics.

[36]  Rocco J. Perla,et al.  Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes , 2007 .

[37]  P. Jansen,et al.  Object-based and egocentric mental rotation performance in older adults: The importance of gender differences and motor ability , 2014, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[38]  S. Vandenberg,et al.  Mental Rotations, a Group Test of Three-Dimensional Spatial Visualization , 1978, Perceptual and motor skills.

[39]  E. Letournel,et al.  Acetabulum fractures: classification and management , 1980, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.