We have investigated the accuracy of the templating of digital radiographs in planning total hip replacement using two common object-based calibration methods with the ball placed laterally (method 1) or medially (method 2) and compared them with two non-object-based methods. The latter comprised the application of a fixed magnification of 121% (method 3) and calculation of magnification based on the object-film-distance (method 4). We studied the post-operative radiographs of 57 patients (19 men, 38 women, mean age 73 years (53 to 89)) using the measured diameter of the prosthetic femoral head and comparing it with the true value. Both object-based methods (1 and 2) produced large errors (mean/maximum: 2.55%/17.4% and 2.04%/6.46%, respectively). Method 3 applying a fixed magnification and method 4 (object-film-distance) produced smaller errors (mean/maximum 1.42%/5.22% and 1.57%/4.24%, respectively; p <
0.01). The latter results were clinically relevant and acceptable when planning was allowed to within one implant size. Object-based calibration (methods 1 and 2) has fundamental problems with the correct placement of the calibration ball. The accuracy of the fixed magnification (method 3) matched that of object-film-distance (method 4) and was the most reliable and efficient calibration method in digital templating.
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% The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.
