Benjamin Fritz1,2, Christoph A Agten3,4, Franca K Boldt3,4, Patrick O Zingg4,5, Christian W A Pfirrmann3,4, Reto Sutter3,4. 1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland. benjamin.fritz@balgrist.ch. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. benjamin.fritz@balgrist.ch. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, CH-8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Orthopedics, University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of 2D and 3D acetabular coverage assessments based on low-dose biplanar radiographs (BPR) in comparison with CT, and to demonstrate the influence of weight-bearing position (WBP) on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages. METHODS: Fifty patients (21 females, 29 males) underwent standing BPR and supine CT of the pelvis. Using dedicated software, BPR-based calculations of anterior and posterior 2D coverages and anterior, posterior, and global 3D coverages were performed in standardized anterior pelvic plane (APP) and WBP. CT-based anterior and posterior 2D coverages and global 3D coverage was calculated in APP and compared with BPR-based data. Statistics included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Mean anterior 2D coverage was 21.2% (standard deviation, ± 7.4%) for BPR and 23.8% (± 8.4%) for CT (p = 0.226). Mean posterior 2D coverage was 54.2% (± 9.8%) for BPR and 61.7% (± 9.7%) for CT (p = 0.001). Mean global 3D coverage was 46.5% (± 3.0%) for BPR and 45.6% (± 3.6%) for CT (p = 0.215). The inter-method reliability between CT and BPR and inter-reader reliability for BPR-based measurements were very good for all measurement (all ICC > 0.8). Based on BPR, mean anterior and posterior 3D coverages were 20.5% and 26.0% in WBP and APP, while 25 patients increased anterior and 24 patients increased posterior 3D coverage from APP to WBP with a relative change of coverage of up to 11.9% and 10.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on BPR. The impact of standing position on acetabular coverage can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis. KEY POINTS: • 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on biplanar radiographs in comparison with CT. • The impact of standing position on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of 2D and 3D acetabular coverage assessments based on low-dose biplanar radiographs (BPR) in comparison with CT, and to demonstrate the influence of weight-bearing position (WBP) on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages. METHODS: Fifty patients (21 females, 29 males) underwent standing BPR and supine CT of the pelvis. Using dedicated software, BPR-based calculations of anterior and posterior 2D coverages and anterior, posterior, and global 3D coverages were performed in standardized anterior pelvic plane (APP) and WBP. CT-based anterior and posterior 2D coverages and global 3D coverage was calculated in APP and compared with BPR-based data. Statistics included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Mean anterior 2D coverage was 21.2% (standard deviation, ± 7.4%) for BPR and 23.8% (± 8.4%) for CT (p = 0.226). Mean posterior 2D coverage was 54.2% (± 9.8%) for BPR and 61.7% (± 9.7%) for CT (p = 0.001). Mean global 3D coverage was 46.5% (± 3.0%) for BPR and 45.6% (± 3.6%) for CT (p = 0.215). The inter-method reliability between CT and BPR and inter-reader reliability for BPR-based measurements were very good for all measurement (all ICC > 0.8). Based on BPR, mean anterior and posterior 3D coverages were 20.5% and 26.0% in WBP and APP, while 25 patients increased anterior and 24 patients increased posterior 3D coverage from APP to WBP with a relative change of coverage of up to 11.9% and 10.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on BPR. The impact of standing position on acetabular coverage can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis. KEY POINTS: • 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on biplanar radiographs in comparison with CT. • The impact of standing position on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acetabulum; Hip joint; Radiography; Reproducibility of results; Weight-bearing
Authors: Tobias J Dietrich; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Alexander Schwab; Katja Pankalla; Florian M Buck Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Martin Beck; Michael Leunig; Javad Parvizi; Vincent Boutier; Daniel Wyss; Reinhold Ganz Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Steven F DeFroda; Thomas D Alter; Floor Lambers; Philip Malloy; Ian M Clapp; Jorge Chahla; Shane J Nho Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-11-19
Authors: Adrian C Ruckli; Florian Schmaranzer; Malin K Meier; Till D Lerch; Simon D Steppacher; Moritz Tannast; Guodong Zeng; Jürgen Burger; Klaus A Siebenrock; Nicolas Gerber; Kate Gerber Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 3.421