Date: 09 May 2013
Reliability of Overcoverage Parameters With Varying Morphologic Pincer Features: Comparison of EOS® and Radiography
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Multiple radiographic parameters used for diagnosis and quantification of morphologic pincer features have emerged, but the degree to which pelvic tilt or rotation affects conventional radiography and EOS® is unknown.
We asked: (1) What is the reliability of EOS® and conventional radiography at increasing sizes of morphologic pincer features with varying degrees of tilt and rotation? (2) What is the effect of tilt and rotation on acetabular overcoverage measurements?
Using a dry cadaveric pelvis, AP conventional radiographs and EOS® images were taken at intervals of increasing modeled pincer size with 0° to 15° varying tilt and rotation. Lateral center-edge angle, Sharp angle, Tönnis angle, crossover sign, and retroversion index were measured on all images. Statistical analysis was conducted.
The intermodality intraclass correlation coefficients for conventional radiography and EOS® radiography across all pincer sizes, rotations, and tilts were excellent (0.93–0.98). Crossover sign was in perfect agreement in conventional radiography and EOS®. Rotation of the hip away from the beam source and/or increased anterior tilt falsely increased all overcoverage parameters except for Tönnis angle. Rotation away from the beam of 10°or greater or anterior tilt of 5° or greater produced a false-positive crossover sign.
EOS® radiography maintained excellent reliability in comparison to conventional radiography but both were equally vulnerable to the effects of tilt and rotation for quantification of hip parameters used in acetabular overcoverage assessment. A standardized pelvic radiograph ensuring that the pelvis is not excessively tilted or rotated should be used for assessing acetabular overcoverage parameters.
The institution of the authors has received, during the study period, funding from EOS Imaging Inc (Cambridge, MA, USA).
Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use.
Each author certifies that his or her institution approved or waived approval for the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.
This study was performed at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, CA, USA.
Bell AL, Brand RA. Roentgenographic changes in proximal femoral dimensions due to hip rotation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;240:194–199.PubMed
Bushberg JT. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
Deschenes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G, Labelle H, Dubois J, Miron MC, Parent S. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:989–994.
Dubousset J, Charpak G, Dorion I, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Deguise J, Kalifa G, Ferey S. [A new 2D and 3D imaging approach to musculoskeletal physiology and pathology with low-dose radiation and the standing position: the EOS system][in French]. Bull Acad Natl Med. 2005;189:287–297; discussion 297–300.PubMed
Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Notzli H, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:112–120.PubMed
Hoan NN, Majewski S, Charpak G, Policarpo AJ. An efficient, gaseous detector with good low-energy resolution for (less than or equal to 50 keV) imaging. J Nucl Med. 1979;20:335–340.PubMed
Lazennec JY, Rousseau MA, Rangel A, Gorin M, Belicourt C, Brusson A, Catonne Y. Pelvis and total hip arthroplasty acetabular component orientations in sitting and standing positions: measurements reproductibility with EOS imaging system versus conventional radiographies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97:373–380.PubMedCrossRef
Linclau L, Dokter G, Peene P. Radiological aspects in preoperative planning and postoperative assessment of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 1993;59:163–167.PubMed
McKenna C, Wade R, Faria R, Yang H, Stirk L, Gummerson N, Sculpher M, Woolacott N. EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–188.
Sharp IK. Acetabular dysplasia: the acetabular angle. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1961;43:268–272.
Siebenrock KA, Schoeniger R, Ganz R. Anterior femoro-acetabular impingement due to acetabular retroversion: treatment with periacetabular osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:278–286.PubMed
Tönnis D. Congenital Dysplasia and Dislocation of the Hip in Children and Adults. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1987.CrossRef
Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint: with special referance to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1939;83(suppl 58):1–135.
- Reliability of Overcoverage Parameters With Varying Morphologic Pincer Features: Comparison of EOS® and Radiography
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Volume 471, Issue 8 , pp 2578-2585
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors