Abstract
Introduction
Accurate evaluation of femoral offset is difficult with conventional anteroposterior (AP) X-rays. Routine CT imaging is costly and exposes patients to a significant dose of radiation. The EOS® imaging system is an innovative slot-scanning radiography system that makes possible the acquisition of simultaneous and orthogonal AP and lateral images of the patient in standing position. These 2-dimensional (2D) images are equivalent to standard plane X-rays. Three-dimension (3D) reconstructions are obtained from these paired images according to a validated protocol. This prospective study explores for the first time the value of the EOS® imaging system for comparing measurements of femoral offset obtained from 2D images and 3D reconstructions.
Materials and Methods
Following our standard protocol, we included a series of 100 patients with unilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA). The 2D offset was measured on the AP view with the same protocol as for standard X-rays. The 3D offset was calculated from the reconstructions based on the orthogonal AP and lateral views. Reproducibility and repeatability studies were conducted for each measurement. We compared the 2D and 3D offsets for both hips (with and without THA).
Results
For the global series (100 hips with and 100 without THA), the 2D offset was 40 mm (SD: 7.3; range 7 to 57 mm). The standard deviation was 6.5 mm for repeatability and 7.5 mm for reproducibility. The 3D offset was 43 mm (SD: 6.6; range 22 to 62 mm), with a standard deviation of 4.6 mm for repeatability and 5.5 mm for reproducibility. The 2D offset for the hips without THA was 40 mm (SD: 7.0; range 26 to 56 mm), and the 3D offset was 43 mm (SD: 6.6; range 28 to 62 mm). For the THA side, the 2D offset was 41 mm (SD: 8.2; range 7 to 57 mm) and the 3D offset was 45 mm (SD: 4.8; range 22 to 61 mm). Comparison of the two protocols shows a significant difference between the 2D and 3D measurements, with the 3D offsets having higher values. Comparison of the sides with and without surgery for each case showed a 5-mm deficit for the offset in 35% of the patients according to the 2D measurement but in only 26% according to the 3D calculation.
Conclusions
This study highlights the limitations of 2D measurements of femoral offset on plane X-rays. The reliability of the EOS® 3D models has been previously demonstrated with CT scan reconstructions as a reference. The EOS® imaging system could be an option for obtaining accurate and reliable offset measurements while significantly limiting the patient's exposure to radiation.
