Andreas Hecker1, Till D Lerch2, Rainer J Egli2, Emanuel F Liechti3, Frank M Klenke3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. andreas.hecker@insel.ch. 2. University Institute for Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the values determined during the assessment of knee issues is the posterior tibial slope (PTS). A new option for measuring the PTS is the EOS 3D imaging system, which provides anteroposterior (AP) and lateral long leg radiographs (LLRs) using less radiation than a conventional LLR. We investigated the reliability of the EOS 3D imaging system with respect to PTS measurements. METHODS: We retrospectively searched our radiological database for patients who underwent an EOS scan and a computed tomography (CT) scan of their lower extremities between January and December 2019. Fifty-six knees were included in the study. Medial and lateral PTSs were determined using both modalities. A radiologist and an orthopaedic surgeon each performed all measurements twice and the intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated to assess inter- and intrarater reliability. The Student t test and Pearson correlation were used to compare the results of both imaging modalities. RESULTS: The mean medial PTS was 8.5° (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1-8.9°) for the EOS system and 7.7° (95% CI, 7.3-8.1°) for CT, and the lateral PTS was 7.4° (95% CI, 6.9-7.9°) for the EOS system, and 7.0° (95% CI, 6.5-7.4°) for CT. Interrater reliability (ICC) with respect to medial and lateral PTSs measured on the EOS (0.880, 0.765) and CT (0.884, 0.887) images was excellent. The intrarater reliability of reader 1 (ICC range, 0.889-0.986) and reader 2 (ICC range, 0.868-0.980) with respect to the same measurements was excellent. CONCLUSION: The PTS measurements from the EOS 3D imaging system are as reliable and reproducible as those from CT, the current gold standard method. We recommend using this system if possible, because it acquires more information (sagittal plane) in a scan than a conventional LLR, while exposing the patient to less radiation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.
BACKGROUND: One of the values determined during the assessment of knee issues is the posterior tibial slope (PTS). A new option for measuring the PTS is the EOS 3D imaging system, which provides anteroposterior (AP) and lateral long leg radiographs (LLRs) using less radiation than a conventional LLR. We investigated the reliability of the EOS 3D imaging system with respect to PTS measurements. METHODS: We retrospectively searched our radiological database for patients who underwent an EOS scan and a computed tomography (CT) scan of their lower extremities between January and December 2019. Fifty-six knees were included in the study. Medial and lateral PTSs were determined using both modalities. A radiologist and an orthopaedic surgeon each performed all measurements twice and the intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated to assess inter- and intrarater reliability. The Student t test and Pearson correlation were used to compare the results of both imaging modalities. RESULTS: The mean medial PTS was 8.5° (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1-8.9°) for the EOS system and 7.7° (95% CI, 7.3-8.1°) for CT, and the lateral PTS was 7.4° (95% CI, 6.9-7.9°) for the EOS system, and 7.0° (95% CI, 6.5-7.4°) for CT. Interrater reliability (ICC) with respect to medial and lateral PTSs measured on the EOS (0.880, 0.765) and CT (0.884, 0.887) images was excellent. The intrarater reliability of reader 1 (ICC range, 0.889-0.986) and reader 2 (ICC range, 0.868-0.980) with respect to the same measurements was excellent. CONCLUSION: The PTS measurements from the EOS 3D imaging system are as reliable and reproducible as those from CT, the current gold standard method. We recommend using this system if possible, because it acquires more information (sagittal plane) in a scan than a conventional LLR, while exposing the patient to less radiation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.
Entities:
Keywords:
EOS; Long leg radiographs; Planning HTO; Sagittal lower leg alignment; Tibial slope
Authors: J Robert Giffin; Tracy M Vogrin; Thore Zantop; Savio L Y Woo; Christopher D Harner Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Robert Hudek; Silvia Schmutz; Felix Regenfelder; Bruno Fuchs; Peter P Koch Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Christine Goodbody; Paz Kedem; Michaela Thompson; Huong T Do; Douglas N Mintz; Roger F Widmann; Emily R Dodwell Journal: HSS J Date: 2017-03-01
Authors: J Robert Giffin; Kathryne J Stabile; Thore Zantop; Tracy M Vogrin; Savio L-Y Woo; Christopher D Harner Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: K Claxton; S Palmer; L Longworth; L Bojke; S Griffin; C McKenna; M Soares; E Spackman; J Youn Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Huan Bei Zeng; Xiao Zhou Ying; Guang Jun Chen; Xia Qing Yang; Duo Duo Lin; Zhi Jie Li; Hai Xiao Liu Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.365