EOS orthopaedic imaging system to study patellofemoral kinematics: assessment of uncertainty

EOS(®) biplanar X-ray imaging: concept, developments, benefits, and limitations

PURPOSE

In 1992, Georges Charpak invented a new type of X-ray detector, which in turn led to the development of the EOS(®) 2D/3D imaging system. This system takes simultaneous anteroposterior and lateral 2D images of the whole body and can be utilized to perform 3D reconstruction based on statistical models. The purpose of this review is to present the state of the art for this EOS(®) imaging technique, to report recent developments and advances in the technique, and to stress its benefits while also noting its limitations.

METHODS

The review was based on a thorough literature search on the subject as well as personal experience gained from many years of using the EOS(®) system.

RESULTS

While EOS(®) imaging could be proposed for many applications, it is most useful in relation to scoliosis and sagittal balance, due to its ability to take simultaneous orthogonal images while the patient is standing, to perform 3D reconstruction, and to determine various relationships among adjacent segments (cervical spine, pelvis, and lower limbs). The technique has also been validated for the study of pelvic and lower-limb deformity and pathology in adult and pediatric populations; in such a study it has the advantage of allowing the measurement of torsional deformity, which classically requires a CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

The major advantages of EOS(®) are the relatively low dose of radiation (50-80 % less than conventional X-rays) that the patient receives and the possibility of obtaining a 3D reconstruction of the bones. However, this 3D reconstruction is not created automatically; a well-trained operator is required to generate it. The EOS(®) imaging technique has proven itself to be a very useful research and diagnostic tool.

Reliability of overcoverage parameters with varying morphologic pincer features: comparison of EOS® and radiography

BACKGROUND

Multiple radiographic parameters used for diagnosis and quantification of morphologic pincer features have emerged, but the degree to which pelvic tilt or rotation affects conventional radiography and EOS(®) is unknown.

QUESTION/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) What is the reliability of EOS(®) and conventional radiography at increasing sizes of morphologic pincer features with varying degrees of tilt and rotation? (2) What is the effect of tilt and rotation on acetabular overcoverage measurements?

METHODS

Using a dry cadaveric pelvis, AP conventional radiographs and EOS(®) images were taken at intervals of increasing modeled pincer size with 0° to 15° varying tilt and rotation. Lateral center-edge angle, Sharp angle, Tönnis angle, crossover sign, and retroversion index were measured on all images. Statistical analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

The intermodality intraclass correlation coefficients for conventional radiography and EOS(®) radiography across all pincer sizes, rotations, and tilts were excellent (0.93-0.98). Crossover sign was in perfect agreement in conventional radiography and EOS(®). Rotation of the hip away from the beam source and/or increased anterior tilt falsely increased all overcoverage parameters except for Tönnis angle. Rotation away from the beam of 10° or greater or anterior tilt of 5° or greater produced a false-positive crossover sign.

CONCLUSIONS

EOS(®) radiography maintained excellent reliability in comparison to conventional radiography but both were equally vulnerable to the effects of tilt and rotation for quantification of hip parameters used in acetabular overcoverage assessment. A standardized pelvic radiograph ensuring that the pelvis is not excessively tilted or rotated should be used for assessing acetabular overcoverage parameters.