Digital radiography is becoming widespread. Accurate pre-operative templating of digital images of the hip traditionally involves positioning a calibration object at its centre. This can be difficult and cause embarrassment. We have devised a method whereby a planar disc placed on the radiographic cassette accounts for the expected magnification. Initial examination of 50 pelvic CT scans showed a mean hip centre distance of 117 mm (79 to 142) above the gluteal skin. Further calculations predicted that a disc of 37.17 mm diameter, placed on the cassette, would appear identical to a 30 mm sphere placed at the level of the centre of the hip as requested by our templating software. We assessed accuracy and reproducibility by ‘reverse calibration’ of 20 radiographs taken three months after hip replacement using simultaneous sphere and disc methods, and a further 20 with a precision disc of accurate size. Even when variations in patient size were ignored, the disc proved more accurate and reliable than the sphere. The technique is reliable, robust, cost effective and acceptable to patients and radiographers. It can easily be used in any radiography department after a few simple calculations and manufacture of appropriately-sized discs

Aims

We investigated changes in the axial alignment of the ipsilateral hip and knee after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

We have developed a novel method of calculating the radiological magnification of the hip using two separate radio-opaque markers. We recruited 74 patients undergoing radiological assessment following total hip replacement. Both the new double marker and a conventional single marker were used by the radiographer at the time of x-ray. The predicted magnification according to each marker was calculated, as was the true radiological magnification of the components. The correlation between true and predicted magnification was good using the double marker (r = 0.90, n = 74, p < 0.001), but only moderate for the single marker (r = 0.50, n = 63, p < 0.001). The median error was significantly less for the double marker than for the single (1.1% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). The double marker method demonstrated excellent validity (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89), in contrast to the single marker (0.32).

The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.