Assessment of magnification of digital radiographs in total HIP arthroplasty

Clinical application of artificial intelligence-assisted three-dimensional planning in direct anterior approach hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of an artificial intelligence-assisted 3D planning system (AIHIP) in total hip arthroplasty by direct anterior approach and assess the reliability of the AIHIP preoperative program in terms of both interobserver and intraobserver agreement.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent unilateral primary THA via direct anterior approach from June 2019 to March 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the AIHIP system (n = 220) or the 2D template (control group) (n = 220) for preoperative planning. The primary outcome aimed to evaluate the correspondence between the prosthesis selected intro-operation and the one planned preoperatively, as well as to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Secondary outcomes included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, Harris hip score (HHS), lower limb length difference (LLD), femoral offset (FO), and bilateral femoral offset difference.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in gender, age, body mass index (BMI), aetiology, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score between the two groups. Both planning methods exhibited good intraobserver agreement for component planning (ICC: 0.941-0.976). Interobserver agreement for component planning was comparable between the two methods (ICC: 0.882-0.929). In the AIHIP group, the accuracy of acetabular cup and femoral stem prosthetics planning significantly improved, with accuracies within the size range of ± 0 and ± 1 being 76.8% and 90.5% and 79.5% and 95.5%, respectively. All differences between two groups were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Patients receiving AIHIP preoperative planning experienced shorter operation times, reduced intraoperative blood loss, fewer fluoroscopy times, and lower leg length discrepancy (LLD) (p < 0.05). Moreover, they demonstrated a higher Harris hip score (HHS) at three days post-surgery (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in femoral offset (FO), difference of bilateral femoral offsets, and HHS at 1 month after the operation.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing AIHIP for preoperative planning of direct anterior approach THA can significantly enhance the accuracy of prosthetic sizing with good reliability, decrease operation time, reduce intraoperative blood loss, and more effectively restore the length of both lower limbs. This approach has greater clinical application value.

Calibration of magnification in two-dimensional low-dose full-body imaging for preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty (THA) using two-dimensional low-dose (2DLD) full-body imaging has gained popularity in recent years. The low-dose imaging system is said to produce a calibrated image with constant 1:1 magnification. However, the planning software used in conjunction with those images may introduce variations in the degree of magnification in 2DLD imaging, and this has not yet been investigated. The purpose of the present study was to quantify any variation in 2DLD image to assess the need for image calibration when using conventional planning software.

METHODS

Postoperative 2DLD images from 137 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Only patients who underwent THA for primary osteoarthritis were included in the study cohort. The femoral head diameter was measured by two independent observers using both Orthoview™ and TraumaCad™ planning software programs. Actual sizes of the femoral head implants were extracted from surgical reports to calculate image magnification. Magnification measurement reliability was calculated with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) index.

RESULTS

Image magnification varied among cases (mean 133%, range 129-135%). There was no statistical difference in mean image magnification among the various implant sizes (p = 0.8). Mean observer and inter-observer reliability was rated excellent.

CONCLUSION

THA planning with 2DLD imaging is subject to variation in magnification as analyzed with conventional planning software in this series. This finding is of paramount importance for surgeons using 2DLD imaging in preparation for THA since errors in magnification could affect the accuracy of preoperative planning and ultimately the clinical outcome.

Magnification assessment of radiographs for knee replacement (MARKeR) - A pilot study in a low-resource setting

Background

Selecting the correct size of implants to be used in total knee arthroplasty is critical for a successful outcome. Marker-less templating systems use an institutionally derived magnification factor for all radiographs.

Purpose

To determine the institutional magnification of knee radiographs for patients awaiting total knee arthroplasty.

Material and Methods

Eighty patients awaiting total knee arthroplasty underwent preoperative knee radiographs using a standardized protocol. A marker attached to the patients’ knees at the level of the knee joint was used to calculate the magnification factor on both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) views. Two independent observers estimated the magnification to determine the intra and inter-observer reliability.

Results

The mean magnification of the AP (15.3%) radiograph was significantly greater than the LAT (12.1%) radiograph (p< 0.0001). Patients with absent markers on their radiographs were heavier than patients in whom the marker was visible (84.7 kgs vs. 76.6 kgs, p=0.01). No marker was visible on the radiographs in 56.3% (45/80) of patients. There was excellent inter and intra-observer reliability of both the AP and LAT measurements.

Conclusion

After standardizing the protocol for preoperative knee radiographs, our results show significantly greater institutional magnification of the anteroposterior compared with the lateral images. Accurate templating in knee arthroplasty requires both radiographic images. To reduce errors in implant sizing, we recommend surgeons use different institutional magnification factors for the anteroposterior and lateral radiographs.

Pre-operative templating for total hip arthroplasty: How does radiographic technique and calibration marker placement affect image magnification?

INTRODUCTION

Pre-operative templating using digital radiography is an effective method of planning for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and requires a generalised fixed magnification factor (MF) or external calibration markers (ECM). The effect on image magnification when changing source-to-image distance (SID), object-to-image distance (OID) and different imaging conditions is not well described. This study aims to quantify the range of effects manipulation of radiographic parameters can have on image magnification across different body habitus and imaging conditions.

METHODS

A simple phantom study was performed. A 25 mm ECM was placed at eight different OID values along the anterior-posterior phantom plane at three different SID values and imaging conditions, and X-rays were obtained. On each radiograph, the ECM was measured using a line calliper tool by three radiographers and recorded. The MF was calculated and recorded.

RESULTS

The smallest observed image MF was 1.16, for an 8 cm OID, 120 cm SID with the ECM placed within the central ray and the X-ray detector in bucky underneath the X-ray table. The largest image MF was 1.40 for a 15 cm OID, 100 cm SID with the X-ray detector placed underneath an emergency department imaging trolley.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital pre-operative templating for THA relies on accurate radiographic positioning and is dependent of the patient body habitus, radiographic parameters and imaging conditions selected by the radiographer. The use of appropriately positioned ECMs - placed medially between the patient's internally rotated legs at the level of the greater trochanter, lowers the potential for magnification inaccuracies.