Introduction. In the evaluation of patients with pre-arthritic hip disorders, making the correct diagnosis and identifying the underlying bone pathology is of upmost importance to achieve optimal patient outcomes. 3-dimensional imaging adds information for proper preoperative planning. CT scans have become the gold standard for this, but with the associated risk of radiation exposure to this generally younger patient cohort. Purpose. To determine if 3D-MR reconstructions of the hip can be used to accurately demonstrate femoral and acetabular morphology in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and development dysplasia of the hip (DDH) that is comparable to CT imaging. Materials and Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 14 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of FAI or DDH that underwent both CT and MRI scans of the same hip with 3D reconstructions. 2 fellowship trained musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed all scans, and a fellowship trained hip preservation surgeon separately reviewed scans for relevant surgical parameters. All were blinded to the patients' clinical history. The 3D reconstructions were evaluated by radiologists for the presence of a CAM lesion and acetabular retroversion, while the hip preservation surgeon also evaluated CAM extent using a clock face convention of a right hip, location of femoral head blood supply, and morphological anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) variant. The findings on the 3D CT reconstructions were considered the reference standard. Results. Of 14 patients, there were 9 females and 5 males with a mean age 32 (range 15–42). There was no difference in the ability of MRI to detect the presence of a CAM lesion (100% agreement between 3D-MR and 3D-CT, p=1), AIIS morphology (p=1, mode=type 1 variant), or acetabular retroversion (85.7%, p=0.5). 3D-MR had a sensitivity and specificity of 100 in detecting a CAM lesion relative to 3D-CT. Four CT studies were inadequate to adequately evaluate for presence of a CAM. Five CT studies were inadequate to evaluate for location of the femoral head vessels, while MRI was able to determine location in those patients. In the 10 remaining patients for presence of CAM, and nine patients for femoral head vessel location, there was no statistically significant difference between 3D-MR and 3D-CT in determining the location of CAM lesion on a clock face (p=0.8, mean MRI = 12:54, mean CT: 12:51, SD = 66 mins MR, 81 mins CT) or in determining vessel location (p=0.4, MR mean 11:23, CT mean 11:36, SD 33 mins for both). Conclusion. 3D MRI reconstructions are as accurate as 3D CT reconstructions in evaluating osseous morphology of the hip, and may be superior to CT in determining other certain clinically relevant hip parameters. 3D-MR was equally useful in determining the presence and extent of a CAM lesion, acetabular retroversion, and AIIS morphologic variant, and more useful than 3D CT in determining location of the femoral head vessels. In evaluating FAI or hip dysplasia, a 3D-MR study is sufficient to evaluate both soft tissue and osseous anatomy, sparing the need for a 3D CT scan and its associated radiation exposure and cost

Introduction

Kinematics analyses of the spine have been recognized as an effective method for functional analysis of the spine. CT is suitable for obtaining bony geometry of the vertebrae but radiation is a clinical concern. MRI is noninvasive but it is difficult to detect bone edges especially at endplates and processes where soft tissues attach. Kinematics analyses require tracking of solid bodies; therefore, bony geometry is not always necessary for kinematics analysis of the spine. This study aimed to develop a reliable and robust method for kinematics analysis of the spine using an innovative MRI-based 3D bone-marrow model.

Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is a tool developed to allow accurate limb and implant alignment in total knee arthroplasty [TKA]. The strength of the technology is that it allows the surgeon to assess soft tissue balance and ligament laxity in flexion and extension. The accuracy of this ligament balancing technology depends upon an accurate determination of femoral component size. This size is established with intraoperative surface registration techniques. Customised instrumentation (CI) is a measured resection technique in which component size is established on preoperative 3D MRI reconstructions. The purpose of this study is to determine how these two computer-based technologies compare with regard to the accuracy with which femoral component size is established in TKA. 67 TKA were performed using CI and 30 TKA were performed using CAS by a single surgeon. CI-predicted and CAS-predicted femoral component size were compared to actual component selection. The process by which CI and CAS perform an anatomic registration was evaluated. The CI and CAS systems accurately predicted surgeon-selected femoral component size in 89% and 43% of cases, respectively (p<0.001). The discrepancy between predicted and actual femoral component size with CI and CAS was 0.1 and 0.8 sizes, respectively (p<0.001). The maximum deviation between predicted and actual femoral component size was greater in CAS than in PMI (three sizes versus one size, respectively). The anterior cortex cut was flush in 92% of CI cases. The rotation profile was consistent with Whiteside's line in 95% of CI cases. The CI system was both more accurate and more precise than the CAS navigation system in predicting femoral component size in TKA. CI utilises preoperative MR imaging to generate femoral component sizing based on optimizing medial-lateral fit with a measured posterior femoral bone resection. CAS utilises surface registration techniques based on anatomic site registration that may be subject to intraoperative measurement error due to difficult visualization (femoral epicondyles), inherent subjectivity (Whiteside's line) or anatomic variation (hypoplastic posterior condyles). CI bases implant sizing solely on reproducing an anatomical fit and a measured resection technique, whereas CAS attempts to balance an anatomic fit with optimal soft tissue balancing. In this study, the surgeon's final component selection was more likely to be in accordance with the CI rather than the CAS sizing algorithm. The CI system was capable of accurate femoral component placement in TKA. This study suggests that intraoperative surface registration may not be as accurate as preoperative 3D MRI reconstructions for establishing optimal femoral component sizing. Surgeons using intraoperative navigation based surface registration need to be aware of this when making femoral component size selection, establishing ligament balance, and determining femoral rotation

Introduction. Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is a tool developed to allow accurate limb and implant alignment in TKA. The strength of the technology is that it allows the surgeon to assess soft tissue balance and ligament laxity in flexion and extension. The accuracy of this ligament balancing technology depends upon an accurate determination of femoral component size. This size is established with intraoperative surface registration techniques. Customized instrumentation (CI) is a measured resection technique in which component size is established on preoperative 3D MRI reconstructions. The purpose of this study is to determine how these two computer-based technologies compare with regard to the accuracy with which femoral component size is established in TKA. Methods. 67 TKA were performed using CI and 30 TKA were performed using CAS by a single surgeon. CI-predicted and CAS-predicted femoral component size were compared to actual component selection. The process by which CI and CAS perform an anatomic registration was evaluated. Results. The CI and CAS systems accurately predicted surgeon-selected femoral component size in 89% and 43% of cases, respectively (p<0.001). The discrepancy between predicted and actual femoral component size with CI and CAS was 0.1 and 0.8 sizes, respectively (p<0.001). The maximum deviation between predicted and actual femoral component size was greater in CAS than in PMI (three sizes versus one size, respectively). Discussion. The CI system was both more accurate and more precise than the CAS navigation system in predicting femoral component size in TKA. CI utilizes preoperative MR imaging to generate femoral component sizing based on optimizing medial-lateral fit with a measured posterior femoral bone resection. CAS utilizes surface registration techniques based on anatomic site registration that may be subject to intraoperative measurement error due to difficult visualization (femoral epicondyles), inherent subjectivity (Whiteside's line) or anatomic variation (hypoplastic posterior condyles). CI bases implant sizing solely on reproducing an anatomical fit and a measured resection technique, whereas CAS attempts to balance an anatomic fit with optimal soft tissue balancing. In this study, the surgeon's final component selection was more likely to be in accordance with the CI rather than the CAS sizing algorithm. This study suggests that intraoperative surface registration may not be as accurate as preoperative 3D MRI reconstructions for establishing optimal femoral component sizing. Surgeons using intraoperative navigation based surface registration need to be aware of this when they are making femoral component size selection, establishing ligament balance, and determining femoral rotation