Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_12 | Pages 11 - 11
1 Jun 2017
O'Connor J Rutherford M Hill J Beverland D Dunne N Lennon A
Full Access

Unknown femur orientation during X-ray imaging may cause inaccurate radiographic measurements. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of 3D femur orientation during radiographic imaging on the measurement of greater trochanter to femoral head centre (GT-FHC) distance.

Three-dimensional femoral shapes (n=100) of unknown gender were generated using a statistical shape model based on a training data of 47 CT segmented femora. Rotations in the range of 0° internal to 50° external and 50° of flexion to 0° of extension (at 10 degree increments) were applied to each femur. A ray tracing algorithm was then used to create 2D images representing radiographs of the femora in known 3D orientations. The GT-FHC distance was then measured automatically by identifying the femoral head, shaft axis and tip of greater trochanter.

Uniaxial rotations had little impact on the measurement with mean absolute error of 0.6 mm and 3.1 mm for 50° for pure external rotation and 50° pure flexion, respectively. Combined flexion and external rotation yielded more significant errors with 10° around each axis introducing a mean error of 3.6 mm and 20° showing an average error of 8.8 mm (Figure 1.). In the cohort we studied, when the femur was in neutral orientation, the tip of greater trochanter was never below the femoral head centre.

Greater trochanter to femoral head centre measurement was insensitive to rotations around a single axis (i.e. flexion or external rotation). Modest combined rotations caused the tip of greater trochanter to appear more distal in 2D and led to deviation from the true value. This study suggests that a radiograph with the greater trochanter appearing below femoral head centre may have been acquired with 3D rotation of the femur.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly by clicking on ‘Info & Metrics’ above to access author contact details.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_1 | Pages 50 - 50
1 Jan 2017
Rutherford M Hill J Beverland D Lennon A Dunne N
Full Access

Anterior-posterior (AP) x-rays are routinely taken following total hip replacement to assess placement and orientation of implanted components. Pelvic orientation at the time of an AP x-ray can influence projected implant orientation.1However, the extent of pelvic orientation varies between patients.2Without compensation for patient specific pelvic orientation, misleading measurements for implant orientation may be obtained. These measurements are used as indicators for post-operative dislocation stability and range of motion. Errors in which could result in differences between expectations and the true outcome achieved. The aim of this research was to develop a tool that could be utilised to determine pelvic orientation from an AP x-ray.

An algorithm based on comparing projections of a statistical shape model of the pelvis (n=20) with the target X-ray was developed in MATLAB. For each iteration, the average shape was adjusted, rotated (to account for patient-specific pelvic orientation), projected onto a 2D plane, and the simulated outline determined. With respect to rotation, the pelvis was allowed to rotate about its transverse axis (pelvic flexion/extension) and anterior-posterior axis (pelvic adduction/abduction). Minimum root mean square error between the outline of the pelvis from the X-ray and the projected shape model outline was used to select final values for flexion and adduction. To test the algorithm, virtual X-rays (n=6) of different pelvis in known orientations were created using the algorithm described by Freud et al.3The true pelvic orientation for each case was randomly generated. Angular error was defined as the difference between the true pelvic orientation and that selected by the algorithm.

Initial testing has exhibited similar accuracy in determining true pelvic flexion (error = 2.74°, σerror=±2.21°) and true pelvic adduction (error = 2.38°, σerror=±1.76°). For both pelvic flexion and adduction the maximum angular error observed was 5.62°. The minimum angular error for pelvic flexion was 0.37°, whilst for pelvic adduction it was 1.08°.

Although the algorithm is still under development, the low mean, maximum, and standard deviations of error from initial testing indicate the approach is promising. Ongoing work will involve the use of additional landmarks for registration and training shapes to improve the shape model. This tool will allow surgeons to more accurately determine true acetabular orientation relative to the pelvis without the use of additional x-ray views or CT scans. In turn, this will help improve diagnoses of post-operative range of motion and dislocation stability.