Comparison of image quality using a X-ray stereotactical whole-body system and a direct flat-panel X-ray device in examinations of the pelvis and knee

Accuracy of biplanar linear radiography versus conventional radiographs when used for lower limb and implant measurements

INTRODUCTION

The current standard of care for measuring lower extremity length and angular discrepancies is using a full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph. However, there has been increasing interest to use biplanar linear EOS imaging as an alternative. This study aims to compare lower extremity length and implant measurements between biplanar linear and conventional radiographs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 5-year retrospective study, all patients who had a standing full-length anteroposterior and biplanar linear radiographs (EOS®) that include the lower extremities done within one year of each other were included. Patients who underwent surgery in between the imaging, underwent surgeries that could result in graduated length or angulated corrections and inadequate exposure of the lower extremity were excluded. Four radiographic segments were measured to assess lower limb alignment and length measurements. Height and width measurements of implants were performed for patients who had implants in both imaging.

RESULTS

When comparing imaging and actual implant dimensions, biplanar linear radiographs were accurate in measuring actual implant height (median difference = - 0.14 cm, p = 0.66), and width (median difference = - 0.13 cm, p = 0.71). However, conventional radiographs were inaccurate in measuring actual implant height (median difference = 0.19 cm, p = 0.01) and width (median difference = 0.61 cm, p < 0.01). When comparing conventional and biplanar linear radiographs, there was statistically significant difference in all measurements. This includes anatomical femoral length (median difference = 3.53 cm, p < 0.01), mechanical femoral length (median difference = 3.89 cm, p < 0.01), anatomical tibial length (median difference = 2.34 cm, p < 0.01) and mechanical tibial length (median difference = 2.20 cm, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

First, there is a significant difference in the lower extremity length when comparing conventional and biplanar linear radiographs. Second, biplanar linear radiographs are found to be accurate while conventional radiographs are not as accurate in implant measurements of length and width in the lower extremity.

Incidental extraspinal imaging findings on adult EOS full body radiographs: prevalence and clinical importance

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to review our institutional experience with the EOS machine in order to identify the incidence and clinical significance of incidental extraspinal findings (IESF) in an adult spinal deformity population.

Methods

Our institutional database was queried for all full-length standing radiographs generated by the EOS machine. Dictations were reviewed and the number of incidental extraspinal findings were classified using a previously described system. All findings related to the spine were excluded. A subset of electronic medical records were reviewed to determine further workup for individual findings of suspected clinical significance.

Results

Original database query based on radiology reports returned a total of 1857 EOS studies. Duplicate studies, studies without the entire body, and patients with more than 1 study during the search period were excluded. 503 patient studies (55.5% female, mean age 59-years-old, range 18 to 91-years-old) met inclusion criteria. The overall rate of incidental extraspinal findings in our study was 60.4% (304 findings in 503 patients). Most findings were classified as Minor. The rate of Major and Moderate findings was 4.8%. The final rate of clinically significant incidental extraspinal findings was 0.8% and included 3 presumed metastatic lesions in long bones and 1 pulmonary nodule.

Conclusion

To our knowledge this is the first study that reports the rate of incidental extraspinal findings on full body EOS studies. We report a low rate (0.8%) of clinically significant incidental extraspinal findings which is lower than that of CT or MRI. Further research is warranted in comparing EOS and standard radiography.

Is the EOS imaging system as accurate as conventional radiography in grading osteoarthritis of the knee?

OBJECTIVES

The EOS imaging system allows for the acquirement of long-leg radiographic images in a standing position without stitching artifacts or projection bias and at a comparatively low-radiation-dose exposure. The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of EOS images of the lower limb to conventional radiographs (CR) of the knee in a.p. view for the grading of osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

One hundred forty-two patients who had undergone EOS of the lower limb and radiography of the knee on the same day were included. For the grading of OA, the Kellgren and Lawrence score (KL) score and the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) system were used. Additionally, the joint space was measured and compared between the two techniques. EOS images were compared to conventional anteroposterior radiographs of the knee which constitute the gold standard.

RESULTS

Measurements of the joint space showed very good intra-class correlation. The calculated weighted kappa for the KL score of EOS versus CR was excellent. The comparison of the different parameters of the OARSI score showed superb weighted kappa scores between 0.9 and 0.96 (α < 0.001) for the parameters osteophytes and joint space narrowing. The parameter deformity showed a good agreement between EOS and radiographs (sensitivity 93.6%; specificity 100%). For the sclerosis parameter, an overall sensitivity of 71.3% and a specificity of 99.3% were calculated.

CONCLUSIONS

The grading of OA using the KL score as well as the quantitative assessment of joint space width can be performed on EOS images in a.p. view as reliably as on CR. Subchondral sclerosis of the lateral and medial femur condyle or tibia is sometimes not as evident on EOS images.

KEY POINTS

• Grading of OA may be performed as reliably with EOS images in a.p. view as with conventional radiographs in a.p. view. • EOS can be safely used for primary assessment of osteoarthritis of the knee. • In the preoperative setting for knee replacement surgery, conventional radiographs in two or three planes of the knee should still be acquired in addition to long-leg EOS images.

Reliability of EOS compared to conventional radiographs for evaluation of lower extremity deformity in adult patients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare reliability of lower extremity imaging measurements using EOS and conventional X-ray (CR) of adult patients with mechanical axis malalignment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients (20 lower limbs) of mean age of 31.6 years (range 21-39) with post-traumatic deformities who presented for evaluation of osteotomies and/or ligament and cartilage reconstructions were prospectively enrolled. Two independent observers performed full-length anterior-posterior (AP) measurements 2 weeks apart on both CXR and two-dimensional (2D) EOS images. Measurements included weight-bearing axis (WBA), varus/valgus angle (V/V), femoral length (FL), tibial length (TL), femoral mechanical axis (FMA), tibial mechanical axis (TMA), and total limb length (TLL). Reliability was determined with random effects modeling of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) set to consistency. Three statistical operations were performed to compare interrater validity in CXR and EOS: students' two-sample t test, paired two-sample t test, and Pearson's correlative r-statistical agreement.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference for V/V, FL, and TLL (all p < 0.01) between CXR and EOS. A relatively large proportion of the population consistently had larger V/V measures for EOS compared to CXR. In contrast, the FL and TLL measures were consistently larger for CXR compared to EOS. The differences between CXR and EOS measurements were statistically significant, though the small differences in values were not clinically meaningful. Agreement of all measures remained high (r = 0.84-0.99).

CONCLUSION

Using 2D EOS for lower extremity measurements is reproducible, reliable, and comparable to the gold standard, standing long leg radiographs.

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.