Abstract
Purpose
Radiographic measurements using two-dimensional (2D) plain radiographs or planes from computed tomography (CT) scans have several drawbacks, while measurements using images of three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models can provide more consistent anthropometric information. We compared the consistency of results using measurements based on images of 3D reconstructed bone models (3D measurements) with those using planes from CT scans (measurements using 2D slice images).
Methods
Ninety-six of 561 patients who had undergone deep vein thrombosis-CT between January 2013 and November 2014 were randomly selected. We evaluated measurements using 2D slice images and 3D measurements. The images used for 3D reconstruction of bone models were obtained and measured using \(\hbox {Mimics}^{\mathrm{\textregistered }}\) and \(\hbox {3-Matics}^{\mathrm{\textregistered }}\) (Materialize, Leuven, Belgium).
Results
The mean acetabular inclination, acetabular anteversion and femoral anteversion values on 2D slice images were 42.01\(^{\circ }\), 18.64\(^{\circ }\) and 14.44\(^{\circ }\), respectively, while those using images of 3D reconstructed bone models were 52.80\(^{\circ }\), 14.98\(^{\circ }\) and 17.26\(^{\circ }\). Intra-rater reliabilities for acetabular inclination, acetabular anteversion, and femoral anteversion on 2D slice images were 0.55, 0.81, and 0.85, respectively, while those for 3D measurements were 0.98, 0.99, and 0.98. Inter-rater reliabilities for acetabular inclination, acetabular anteversion and femoral anteversion on 2D slice images were 0.48, 0.86, and 0.84, respectively, while those for 3D measurements were 0.97, 0.99, and 0.97.
Conclusion
The differences between the two measurements are explained by the use of different tools. However, more consistent measurements were possible using the images of 3D reconstructed bone models. Therefore, 3D measurement can be a good alternative to measurement using 2D slice images.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tsai TY, Dimitriou D, Li G, Kwon YM (2014) Does total hip arthroplasty restore native hip anatomy? Three-dimensional reconstruction analysis. Int Orthop 38(8):1577–1583
Zhang J, Wang L, Mao Y, Li H, Ding H, Zhu Z (2014) The use of combined anteversion in total hip arthroplasty for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty 29(3):621–625
Hayashi S, Nishiyama T, Fujishiro T, Hashimoto S, Kanzaki N, Nishida K, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M (2013) Evaluation of the accuracy of femoral component orientation by the CT-based fluoro-matched navigation system. Int Orthop 37(6):1063–1068
Babisch JW, Layher F, Amiot L-P (2008) The rationale for tilt-adjusted acetabular cup navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(2):357–365
Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Da Assunção R, McLardy-Smith P, De Smet K, Gill H, Murray D (2014) The relationship between operative and radiographic acetabular component orientation which factors influence resultant cup orientation? Bone Joint J 96(10):1290–1297
Lu M, Zhou Y-X, Du H, Zhang J, Liu J (2013) Reliability and validity of measuring acetabular component orientation by plain anteroposterior radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(9):2987–2994
Eilander W, Harris S, Henkus H, Cobb J, Hogervorst T (2013) Functional acetabular component position with supine total hip replacement. Bone Joint J 95(10):1326–1331
Derbyshire B, Diggle PJ, Ingham CJ, Macnair R, Wimhurst J, Jones HW (2014) A new technique for radiographic measurement of acetabular cup orientation. J Arthroplasty 29(2):369–372
Parratte S, Kilian P, Pauly V, Champsaur P, Argenson J-N (2008) The use of ultrasound in acquisition of the anterior pelvic plane in computer-assisted total hip replacement: a CADAVER study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(2):258–263
Loftus M, Ma Y, Ghelman B (2015) Acetabular version measurement in total hip arthroplasty: the impact of inclination and the value of multi-planar CT reformation. HSS J 11(1):65–70
Shin W, Lee S, Lee K, Cho H, Lee J, Suh K (2015) The reliability and accuracy of measuring anteversion of the acetabular component on plain anteroposterior and lateral radiographs after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 97(5):611–616
Craiovan B, Weber M, Worlicek M, Schneider M, Springorum H, Zeman F, Grifka J, Renkawitz T (2016) Measuring acetabular cup orientation on antero–posterior radiographs of the hip after total hip arthroplasty with a vector arithmetic radiological method. Is it valid and verified for daily Clinical practice? In: RöFo-Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren. Georg Thieme Verlag KG, pp 574–581
Marx A, von Knoch M, Pförtner J, Wiese M, Saxler G (2006) Misinterpretation of cup anteversion in total hip arthroplasty using planar radiography. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126(7):487–492
Lewinnek GE, Lewis J, Tarr R, Compere C, Zimmerman J (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):217–220
Wassilew GI, Perka C, Koenig C, Janz V, Asbach P, Hasart O (2010) 3D CT analysis of combined cup and stem anteversion in cases of cup navigation in hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 33(10 Suppl):48–51
Merle C, Grammatopoulos G, Waldstein W, Pegg E, Pandit H, Aldinger PR, Gill HS, Murray DW (2013) Comparison of native anatomy with recommended safe component orientation in total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(22):e172
Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW (2016) What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):386–391
Wan Z, Malik A, Jaramaz B, Chao L, Dorr LD (2009) Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(1):32–42
Yun HH, Yoon JR, Yang J-H, Song SY, Park SB, Lee JW (2013) A validation study for estimation of femoral anteversion using the posterior lesser trochanter line: an analysis of computed tomography measurement. J Arthroplasty 28(10):1776–1780
Murphy SB, Simon SR, Kijewski PK, Wilkinson RH, Griscom NT (1987) Femoral anteversion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69(8):1169–1176
Park KK, Tsai T-Y, Dimitriou D, Kwon Y-M (2015) Utility of preoperative femoral neck geometry in predicting femoral stem anteversion. J Arthroplasty 30(6):1079–1084
Zeng Y, Wang Y, Zhu Z, Tang T, Dai K, Qiu S (2012) Differences in acetabular morphology related to side and sex in a Chinese population. J Anat 220(3):256–262
Jiang N, Peng L, Al-Qwbani M, Xie G-P, Yang Q-M, Chai Y, Zhang Q, Yu B (2015) Femoral version, neck-shaft angle, and acetabular anteversion in Chinese Han population: a retrospective analysis of 466 healthy adults. Medicine 94(21):e891
Tannenbaum E, Kopydlowski N, Smith M, Bedi A, Sekiya JK (2014) Gender and racial differences in focal and global acetabular version. J Arthroplasty 29(2):373–376
Koerner JD, Patel NM, Yoon RS, Sirkin MS, Reilly MC, Liporace FA (2013) Femoral version of the general population: does “normal” vary by gender or ethnicity? J Orthop Trauma 27(6):308–311
Tannenbaum EP, Zhang P, Maratt JD, Gombera MM, Holcombe SA, Wang SC, Bedi A, Goulet JA (2015) A computed tomography study of gender differences in acetabular version and morphology: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 31(7):1247–1254
Jozwiak M, Rychlik M, Musielak B, Chen BP, Idzior M, Grzegorzewski A (2015) An accurate method of radiological assessment of acetabular volume and orientation in computed tomography spatial reconstruction. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:42
Hohne KH, Bernstein R (1986) Shading 3D-images from CT using gray-level gradients. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 5(1):45–47
Abbena E, Salamon S, Gray A (2006) Modern differential geometry of curves and surfaces with Mathematica. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Bland JM, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327(8476):307–310
Murray D (1993) The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(2):228–232
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the following programs: (1) “Establishment program of Industrial infrastructure for custom body treatment” through the Ministry of Trade-Industry-Energy and Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (Grant No. A011800027) and (2) “Development of ICT-based software platform and service technologies for medical 3D printing applications” through the ICT R&D program of the Information and Communications Technology Promotion/Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (Grant No. B0101-15-1081).
Authors contribution Each author took part in the design of the study and contributed to acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation of data and agreed to accept equal responsibility for the accuracy of the content of the paper. All authors participated in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and gave final approval of the version to be submitted and any revised version.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Author Young Cheol Kim has received research grants from the Ministry of Trade-Industry-Energy and Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology. Author Hyun Deok Kim has received research grants from the Institute for Information & Communications Technology Promotion and the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and all procedures in this study were in accordance with ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, J., Kim, JY., Kim, H.D. et al. Analysis of acetabular orientation and femoral anteversion using images of three-dimensional reconstructed bone models. Int J CARS 12, 855–864 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1514-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1514-0