This study aimed to develop a virtual clinic for the purpose of reducing face-to-face orthopaedic consultations. Anonymized experts (hip and knee arthroplasty patients, surgeons, physiotherapists, radiologists, and arthroplasty practitioners) gave feedback via a Delphi Consensus Technique. This consisted of an iterative sequence of online surveys, during which virtual documents, made up of a patient-reported questionnaire, standardized radiology report, and decision-guiding algorithm, were modified until consensus was achieved. We tested the patient-reported questionnaire on seven patients in orthopaedic clinics using a ‘think-aloud’ process to capture difficulties with its completion.Aims
Patients and Methods
Computed tomography (CT) plays an important role in evaluating wear and periacetabular osteolysis (PAO) in total hip replacements. One concern with CT is the high radiation exposure since standard pelvic CT provides approximately 3.5 millisieverts (mSv) of radiation exposure, whereas a planar radiographic examination with three projections totals approximately 0.5 mSv. The objective of this study was to evaluate the lowest acceptable radiation dose for dual-energy CT (DECT) images when measuring wear and periacetabular osteolysis in uncemented metal components. A porcine pelvis with bilateral uncemented hip prostheses and with known linear wear and acetabular bone defects was examined in a third-generation multidetector DECT scanner. The examinations were performed with four different radiation levels both with and without iterative reconstruction techniques. From the high and low peak kilo voltage acquisitions, polychrmoatic images were created together with virtual monochromatic images of energies 100 kiloelectron volts (keV) and 150 keV.Objectives
Materials and Methods
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.
