The assessment of leg length is essential for planning the correction of deformities and for the compensation of length discrepancy, especially after hip or knee arthroplasty. CT scan measures the “anatomical” lengths but does not evaluate the “functional” length experienced by the patients in standing position. Functional length integrates frontal orientation, flexion or hyperextension. EOS system provides simultaneously AP and lateral measures in standing position and thus provides anatomical and functional evaluations of the lower limb lengths. The objective of this study was to measure 2D and 3D anatomical and functional lengths, to verify whether these measures are different and to evaluate the parameters significantly influencing these potential differences 70 patients without previous surgery of the lower limbs (140 lower extremities) were evaluated on EOS images obtained in bipodal standing position according to a previously described protocol. We used the following definitions: anatomical femoral length between the center of the femoral head (A) and center of the trochlea (B) anatomical tibial length between the center tibial spine (intercondylar eminence) (C) and the center of the ankle joint (D) functional length is AD global anatomical length is AB + CD Other parameters measured are HKA, HKS, femoral and tibial mechanical angles (FMA, TMA), angles of flexion or hyperextension of the knee, femoral and tibial torsion, femoro-tibial torsion in the knee, and cumulative torsional index (CTI). All 2D et3D measures were evaluated and compared for their repeatability.Introduction
Material and Methods
The gold standard for knee surgery is the restoration of the so-called «neutral mechanical alignment ». Recent literature as pointed out the patients with «constitutional varus »; in these cases, restoring neutral alignment could be abnormal and even undesirable. The same situation can be observed in patients with «constitutional valgus alignment ». To date, these outliers cases have only been explored focusing on the lower limb; the influence of the pelvic morphotype has not been studied. Intuitively, the pelvic width could be a significant factor. The EOS low dose imaging technique provides full body standing X-rays to evaluate the global anatomy of the patient. This work explores the influence of the pelvic parameters on the frontal knee alignment. – We included 170 patients (340 lower extremities). 2 operators performed measurements once per patient on AP X-rays. The classical anatomical parameters were: Femoral mechanical angle (FMA) Tibial mechanical angle (TMA) Hip knee shaft angle (HKS) Hip knee ankle angle (HKA) Femoral and tibial lengths The morphotype was evaluated by: the distances between the center of two femoral heads (FHD), between knees (KD) and between ankles (AD) the medial neck-shaft angle (MNSA) the femoral offset The horizontal distance between the limb mechanical axis (line passing from center of the femoral head to the center of the ankle) and the center of the knee was called the intrinsic mechanical axis deviation (IMAD) (fig 1). The horizontal distance between the pelvic mechanical axis (line from the center of the sacral plate to the center of the ankle) and the center of the knee was called the global mechanical axis deviation (GMAD) (fig 2). Inter-Operator Reliability was calculated with Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Inter-Reader Agreement was assessed with Bland-Altman test. A relationship between IMAD and GMAD to the other parameters was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient.Introduction
Material and methods
Coronal misalignment of the lower limbs is closely related to the onset and progression of osteoarthritis. In cases of severe genu varus or valgus, evaluating this alignment can assist in choosing specific surgical strategies. Furthermore, restoring satisfactory alignment after total knee replacement promotes longevity of the implant and better functional results. Knee coronal alignment is typically evaluated with the Hip-Knee-Ankle (HKA) angle. It is generally measured on standing AP long-leg radiographs (LLR). However, patient positioning influences the accuracy of this 2D measurement. A new 3D method to measure coronal lower limb alignment using low-dose EOS images has recently been developed and validated. The goal of this study was to evaluate the relevance of this technique when determining knee coronal alignment in a referral population, and more specifically to evaluate how the HKA angle measured with this 3D method differs from conventional 2D methods. 70 patients (140 lower extremities) were studied for 2D and 3D lower limb alignment measurements. Each patient received AP monoplane and biplane acquisition of their entire lower extremities on the EOS system according the classical protocols for LLR. For each patient, the HKA angle was measured on this AP X-ray with a 2D viewer. The biplane acquisition was used to perform stereoradiographic 3D modeling. Valgus angulation was considered positive, varus angulation negative. Student's T-test was used to determine if there was a bias in the HKA angle measurement between these two methods and to assess the effect of flexion/hyperextension, femoral rotation and tibial rotation on the 2D measurements. One operator did measurements 2 times.Introduction
Materials and methods
The position and orientation of the lower extremities are fundamental for planning and follow-up imaging after arthroplasty and lower extremity osteotomy. But no studies have reported the reproducibility of measurements over time in the same patient, and experience shows variability of the results depending on the protocols for patient positioning. This study explores the reproducibility of measurements in the lower extremity with the patients in “comfortable standing position” by the EOS® imaging system. Two whole-body acquisitions were performed in each of 40 patients who were evaluated for a spine pathology. The average interval between acquisitions was 15 months (4–35 months). Patients did not have severe spine pathology and did not undergo any surgery between acquisitions. The “comfortable standing position” is achieved without imposing on the patient any specific position of the lower limbs and pelvis. All the measurements were performed and compared in both 2- and 3-dimensional images. Distances between the centers of the femoral heads and between the centers of the knees and ankles were measured from the front. The profile is shown by the flexion angle between the axis of the femur (center of the femoral head and the top of the line Blumensaat) and the axis of the tibia.Introduction
Materials and Methods
The viscoelastic lumbar disk prosthesis ESP is an innovative one-piece deformable but cohesive interbody spacer; it provides 6 full degrees of freedom about the 3 axes including shock absorption. The prosthesis geometry allows limited rotation and translation with resistance to motion (elastic return property) aimed at avoiding overload of the posterior facets. The rotation center can vary freely during motion. It thus differs substantially from current prostheses. This study reports the results of a prospective series of 120 patients who are representative of the current use of the ESP implant since 2006. The surgeries were performed by 2 senior surgeons. There were 73 women and 47 men in this group. The average age was 42 (27–60). The average body mass index was 24.2 kg/m2 (18–33). The implantation was single level in 89% of cases. 134 ESP prostheses were analyzed. Clinical data and X-rays were collected at the preoperative time and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months post-op. The functional results were measured using VAS, GHQ 28, ODI, SF-36, (physical component PCS and mental component MCS. The analysis was performed by a single observer who was independent from the selection of patients and from the surgical procedure.Introduction
Material and methods
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. 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).Introduction
Materials and Methods
Femoral stem anteversion after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has always been assessed using CT scan in supine position. In this study, we evaluated the anteversion of the femoral prosthesis neck in functional standing position using EOS® technology with repeatability and reproducibility of the measurements. The data obtained were compared with conventional anatomic measurements. We measured the anteversion of the femoral prosthesis neck in 45 consecutive patients who had THA performed in nine hospitals. All measurements were obtained using the EOS® imaging system with patients in comfortable standing position. The orientation of the final vector representing the femoral neck was measured on 3-dimensional reconstructions. The anatomic femoral anteversion was calculated as in a transverse plane relative to the scanner and to the plane of the reconstructed bicondylar femoral segment (femoral prosthesis neck against the femoral condyles). Functional femoral anteversion (FFA) was measured in the horizontal plane relative to the frontal plane of the patient through the center of two femoral heads. FFA embodies true anteversion of the femoral prosthesis neck relative to the pelvis, representing the combined lower extremity anteversion.Introduction
Materials and Methods
Recent literature points out the potential interest of standing and sitting X-rays for the evaluation of THA patients. The accuracy of the anterior pelvic plane measures is questionable due to the variations in the quality of lateral standing and sitting X-rays. The EOS® (EOS imaging, Paris, France) is an innovative slot-scanning radiograph system allowing the acquisition of radiograph images while the patient is in weightbearing position with less irradiation than standard imagers. This study reports the “functionnal” positions of a 150 THA cohort, including the lateral orientation of the cups. The following parameters were measured: sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI) and anterior pelvic plane (APP) sagittal inclination (ASI), frontal inclination (AFI) and planar anteversion (ANT). Irradiation doses were calculated in standing and sitting acquisitions. Variations of sagittal orientation of the cup were measured on lateral standing and sitting images. Descriptive and multivariate analysis were performed for the different parameters studied.Background
Methods
