Abstract
Introduction
Implant position plays a major role in the mechanical stability of a total hip replacement. The standard modality for assessing hip component position postoperatively is a 2D anteroposterior radiograph, due to low radiation dose and low cost. Recently, the EOS® X-Ray Imaging Acquisition System has been developed as a new low-dose radiation system for measuring hip component position. EOS imaging can calculate 3D patient information from simultaneous frontal and lateral 2D radiographs of a standing patient without stitching or vertical distortion, and has been shown to be more reliable than conventional radiographs for measuring hip angles[1]. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare EOS imaging to computer tomography (CT) scans, which are the gold standard, to assess the reproducibility of hip angles.
Materials and Methods
Twenty patients undergoing unilateral THA consented to this IRB-approved analysis of post-operative THA cup alignment. Standing EOS imaging and supine CT scans were taken of the same patients 6 weeks post-operatively. Postoperative cup alignment and femoral anteversion were measured from EOS radiographs using sterEOS® software. CT images of the pelvis and femur were segmented using MIMICS software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium), and component position was measured using Geomagic Studio (Morrisville, NC, USA) and PTC Creo Parametric (Needham, MA). The Anterior Pelvic Plane (APP), which is defined by the two anterior superior iliac spines and the pubic symphysis, was used as an anatomic reference for acetabular inclination and anteversion. The most posterior part of the femoral condyles was used as an anatomic reference for femoral anteversion. Two blinded observers measured hip angles using sterEOS® software. Reproducibility was analysed by the Bland-Altman method, and interobserver reliability was calculated using the Cronbach's alpha (∝) coefficient of reliability.
Results
The Bland-Altman analysis of test-retest reliability indicated that the 95% limits of agreement between the EOS and CT measurements ranged from −3° to 4° for acetabular inclination, from −5° to 5° for acetabular anteversion, and from −7° to 2° for femoral anteversion. The average difference between EOS measurements and CT measurements was 2° ± 2° for acetabular inclination, 3°± 2° degrees for acetabular anteversion and 4° ± 4° femoral anteversion. Interobserver agreement was good for acetabular inclination (Cronbach's α = 0.55), acetabular anteversion (Cronbach's α = 0.76) and femoral components (Cronbach's α = 0.98) using EOS imaging.
Conclusions
EOS imaging can accurately and reliably measure hip component position, while exposing patients to a much lower dose of radiation than a CT scan.
