PURPOSE: To compare the manual measurements of lower limbs on digital images with those obtained with dedicated software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with a clinical suspicion of lower limb deformity were enrolled. Eighty digital radiographs were produced with a remote-controlled radiography system (Philips Omnidiagnost). The measurements were taken separately by an Orthopaedic Surgeon and by a Radiologist, by hand and with the aid of software, respectively. Five parameters were assessed: femoral length, tibial length, distal-medial femoral angle, proximal-medial tibial angle and tibial-femoral angle. The statistical analysis of the comparison was based on Student's t-test. The inter-observer variability of the methods, manual and computer-aided, was evaluated with Fisher's F-test on a sample of measurements (20 lower limbs), taken by 5 different Orthopaedic Surgeons and Radiologists, respectively. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the measurements taken with the manual and computer-aided methods (p<0.05). The overall reproducibility of both methods was similar; conversely, the separate evaluation of angles and lengths showed that the computer-aided method was less variable in the measurement of angles and a little more variable in the measurement of lengths than the manual method. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-aided evaluation of the alignment and articular orientation parameters of lower limbs is as accurate and reliable as the traditional manual method, but is faster and allows better-quality images.
PURPOSE: To compare the manual measurements of lower limbs on digital images with those obtained with dedicated software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with a clinical suspicion of lower limb deformity were enrolled. Eighty digital radiographs were produced with a remote-controlled radiography system (Philips Omnidiagnost). The measurements were taken separately by an Orthopaedic Surgeon and by a Radiologist, by hand and with the aid of software, respectively. Five parameters were assessed: femoral length, tibial length, distal-medial femoral angle, proximal-medial tibial angle and tibial-femoral angle. The statistical analysis of the comparison was based on Student's t-test. The inter-observer variability of the methods, manual and computer-aided, was evaluated with Fisher's F-test on a sample of measurements (20 lower limbs), taken by 5 different Orthopaedic Surgeons and Radiologists, respectively. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the measurements taken with the manual and computer-aided methods (p<0.05). The overall reproducibility of both methods was similar; conversely, the separate evaluation of angles and lengths showed that the computer-aided method was less variable in the measurement of angles and a little more variable in the measurement of lengths than the manual method. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-aided evaluation of the alignment and articular orientation parameters of lower limbs is as accurate and reliable as the traditional manual method, but is faster and allows better-quality images.
Authors: Steffen Schröter; Christoph Ihle; Johannes Mueller; Philipp Lobenhoffer; Ulrich Stöckle; Ronald van Heerwaarden Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-07-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Saurabh Khakharia; Daniel Bigman; Austin T Fragomen; Helene Pavlov; S Robert Rozbruch Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Elizabeth A Sled; Lisa M Sheehy; David T Felson; Patrick A Costigan; Miu Lam; T Derek V Cooke Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 2.631