Stephane Descamps1, Christine Livesey, Ian Douglas Learmonth. 1. Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, Hôpital Gabriel Montpied, CHU de Clermont Ferrand, BP 69, 63003, Clermont Ferrand Cedex 01, France. s_descamps@chu-clermontferrand.fr
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With digital radiography development, information technology (IT) companies have developed specific software for templating procedures, requiring individual magnification assessments for each patient. The aim of this study was to determine the mean magnification factor of digital radiographs and to evaluate the possibility of using the mean magnification factor or clinical information in templating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 100 primary total hip arthroplasty digital radiographs using the femoral head prosthesis as a calliper to determinate the mean magnification factor. Working on the assumption that altitude of the hip during radiograph is decisive in modification of magnification factors, we also looked for a correlation between weight, body mass index (BMI), altitude and magnification factor. RESULTS: The magnification factor was 126% (121-130%). A relationship was found between magnification factor (Mf) and weight (Mf = 7.10(-4)x weight (kg) + 1.21), but not BMI. In 98% of cases, if the weight-correlated formula is used, the sizing is correct or the error is +/- 1 mm. With the mean method the sizing is correct or within 1 mm in only 78.2% of cases. CONCLUSION: Levels of accuracy for the mean magnification factor and the weight-correlated formula are not as high as individual assessments using a calliper; however, they could be used in everyday practice where individual magnification factors have not been calculated.
OBJECTIVE: With digital radiography development, information technology (IT) companies have developed specific software for templating procedures, requiring individual magnification assessments for each patient. The aim of this study was to determine the mean magnification factor of digital radiographs and to evaluate the possibility of using the mean magnification factor or clinical information in templating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 100 primary total hip arthroplasty digital radiographs using the femoral head prosthesis as a calliper to determinate the mean magnification factor. Working on the assumption that altitude of the hip during radiograph is decisive in modification of magnification factors, we also looked for a correlation between weight, body mass index (BMI), altitude and magnification factor. RESULTS: The magnification factor was 126% (121-130%). A relationship was found between magnification factor (Mf) and weight (Mf = 7.10(-4)x weight (kg) + 1.21), but not BMI. In 98% of cases, if the weight-correlated formula is used, the sizing is correct or the error is +/- 1 mm. With the mean method the sizing is correct or within 1 mm in only 78.2% of cases. CONCLUSION: Levels of accuracy for the mean magnification factor and the weight-correlated formula are not as high as individual assessments using a calliper; however, they could be used in everyday practice where individual magnification factors have not been calculated.
Authors: Bertram The; Johan W J Kootstra; Anton H Hosman; Nico Verdonschot; Carina L E Gerritsma; Ron L Diercks Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Nuria I Olmedo-Garcia; Jose L Martínez Vergara; Tamara L Aparici Miralles; Juan V Sánchez Andrés; Adela Mesado Vives; Encarna Cruz Renovell; Vicente Granell Beltran Journal: J Orthop Date: 2018-08-24
Authors: Christoph Kolja Boese; Philipp Lechler; Leonard Rose; Jens Dargel; Johannes Oppermann; Peer Eysel; Hansjörg Geiges; Jan Bredow Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jana Hornová; Pavel Růžička; Maroš Hrubina; Eduard Šťastný; Andrea Košková; Petr Fulín; Jiří Gallo; Matej Daniel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240