PURPOSE: To evaluate the available evidence for the clinical effectiveness of the EOS(®) 2D/3D X-ray imaging system for the evaluation and monitoring of scoliosis and other relevant orthopaedic conditions. METHODS: A systematic review of studies of EOS(®), compared with standard X-ray film, computed radiography or digital radiography, of patients with orthopaedic conditions was undertaken. Ten electronic databases were searched. The quality of the included studies was assessed and a narrative synthesis undertaken. RESULTS: Three small, limited quality studies, primarily of children with scoliosis, were identified. No patient health outcomes were reported. Spinal image quality was comparable or better overall with EOS(®). Radiation dose was considerably lower with EOS(®) than X-ray film or computed radiography; the mean entrance surface dose was over five times lower with EOS(®) for the posteroanterior spine radiograph and over six times lower for the lateral spine radiograph. CONCLUSIONS: The available clinical evidence for EOS(®) is limited to establishing its basic technical ability. The technical advancements associated with EOS(®) (the ability to generate a full body scan and to construct a three-dimensional model from synchronously acquired lateral and posteroanterior images) have not been evaluated in terms of their ability to improve patient outcomes. Whilst radiation dose is a concern for orthopaedic patients who require repeated imaging, it is difficult to quantify the reductions in radiation dose seen with EOS(®) in terms of patient health benefits. Clinical studies that investigate the impact of EOS(®) on patient management are required.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the available evidence for the clinical effectiveness of the EOS(®) 2D/3D X-ray imaging system for the evaluation and monitoring of scoliosis and other relevant orthopaedic conditions. METHODS: A systematic review of studies of EOS(®), compared with standard X-ray film, computed radiography or digital radiography, of patients with orthopaedic conditions was undertaken. Ten electronic databases were searched. The quality of the included studies was assessed and a narrative synthesis undertaken. RESULTS: Three small, limited quality studies, primarily of children with scoliosis, were identified. No patient health outcomes were reported. Spinal image quality was comparable or better overall with EOS(®). Radiation dose was considerably lower with EOS(®) than X-ray film or computed radiography; the mean entrance surface dose was over five times lower with EOS(®) for the posteroanterior spine radiograph and over six times lower for the lateral spine radiograph. CONCLUSIONS: The available clinical evidence for EOS(®) is limited to establishing its basic technical ability. The technical advancements associated with EOS(®) (the ability to generate a full body scan and to construct a three-dimensional model from synchronously acquired lateral and posteroanterior images) have not been evaluated in terms of their ability to improve patient outcomes. Whilst radiation dose is a concern for orthopaedic patients who require repeated imaging, it is difficult to quantify the reductions in radiation dose seen with EOS(®) in terms of patient health benefits. Clinical studies that investigate the impact of EOS(®) on patient management are required.
Authors: G Kalifa; Y Charpak; C Maccia; E Fery-Lemonnier; J Bloch; J M Boussard; M Attal; J Dubousset; C Adamsbaum Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 1998-07
Authors: C McKenna; R Wade; R Faria; H Yang; L Stirk; N Gummerson; M Sculpher; N Woolacott Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Cécile M Ronckers; Charles E Land; Jeremy S Miller; Marilyn Stovall; John E Lonstein; Michele M Doody Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 4.615