Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Source-to-detector distance and beam center do not affect radiographic measurements of acetabular morphology

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Multiple radiographic acquisition techniques have been evaluated for their effect on measurements of acetabular morphology. This cadaveric study examined the effect of two acquisition parameters not previously evaluated: beam center position and source-to-detector distance. This study also evaluated the effect of reader differences on measurements.

Methods

Following calibration of measurements between two readers using five clinical radiographs (training), radiographs were obtained from two cadavers using four different source-to-detector distances and three different radiographic centers for a total of 12 radiographic techniques (experimental). Two physician readers acquired four types of measurements from each cadaver radiograph: lateral center edge angle, peak-to-edge distance, Sharp’s angle, and the Tonnis angle. All measurements were evaluated for intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), kappa statistics for hip dysplasia, and factors that resulted in measurement differences using a mixed statistical model.

Results

After training of the two physician readers, there was strong agreement in their hip morphology measurements (ICC 0.84–0.93), agreement in the presence of hip dysplasia (κ = 0.58–1.0), and no measurement difference between physician readers (p = 0.12–1.0). Experimental cadaver measurements showed moderate-to-strong agreement of the readers (ICC 0.74–0.93) and complete agreement on dysplasia (κ = 1). After accounting for reader and radiographic technique, there was no difference in hip morphology measurements (p = 0.83–0.99).

Conclusions

In this cadaveric study, measurements of hip morphology were not affected by varying source-to-detector distance or beam center. We conclude that these acquisition parameters are not likely to affect the diagnosis of hip dysplasia in a clinical setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nelitz M, Guenther KP, Gunkel S, Puhl W. Reliability of radiological measurements in the assessment of hip dysplasia in adults. BJR Suppl. 1999;72(856):331–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mast NH, Impellizzeri F, Keller S, Leunig M. Reliability and agreement of measures used in radiographic evaluation of the adult hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(1):188–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tannast M, Murphy SB, Langlotz F, Anderson SE, Siebenrock KA. Estimation of pelvic tilt on anteroposterior X-rays—a comparison of six parameters. Skelet Radiol. 2006;35(3):149–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson LA, Gililland J, Pelt C, Linford S, Stoddard GJ, Peters CL. Center edge angle measurement for hip preservation surgery: technique and caveats. Orthopedics. 2011;34(2):86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Peterlein C, Tibesku CO, Weinstein SL. Comparison of pelvic radiographs in weightbearing and supine positions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(4):809–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S. Hip dysplasia: a significant risk factor for the development of hip osteoarthritis. A cross-sectional survey. Rheumatology. 2005;44(2):211–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Laborie LB, Lehmann TG, Engesæter IØ, Eastwood DM, Engesæter LB, Rosendahl K. Prevalence of radiographic findings thought to be associated with femoroacetabular impingement in a population-based cohort of 2081 healthy young adults. Radiology. 2011;260(2):494–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Siebenrock K. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;407:241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Terjesen T, Gunderson RB. Reliability of radiographic parameters in adults with hip dysplasia. Skelet Radiol. 2012;41(7):811–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tönnis D. Normal values of the hip joint for the evaluation of X-rays in children and adults. Clin Orthop. 1976;119:39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clohisy JC. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg. 2008;90:47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Park J, Im G. The correlations of the radiological parameters of hip dysplasia and proximal femoral deformity in clinically normal hips of a Korean population. Clin Orthop Surg. 2011;3(2):121–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ömeroglu H, Biçimoglu A, Aguş H, Tümer Y. Measurement of center-edge angle in developmental dysplasia of the hip: a comparison of two methods in patients under 20 years of age. Skelet Radiol. 2002;31(1):25–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lequesne M, Malghem J, Dion E. The normal hip joint space: variations in width, shape, and architecture on 223 pelvic radiographs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(9):1145–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals: developments in the 1980s. Stat Med. 1991;10(12):1897–913.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Buckle CE, Udawatta V, Straus CM. Now you see it, now you don’t: visual illusions in radiology. Radiographics. 2013;33(7):2087–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dandachli W, Najefi A, Iranpour F, Lenihan J, Hart A, Cobb J. Quantifying the contribution of pincer deformity to femoro-acetabular impingement using 3D computerised tomography. Skelet Radiol. 2012;41(10):1295–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint: with special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand. 1939;83(58):53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gomez Pellico L, Fernandez Camacho FJ. Biometry of the anterior border of the human hip bone: normal values and their use in sex determination. J Anat. 1992;181(Pt 3):417–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R, Kim Y, Beaule PE, Morgan P, et al. Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop. 2009;467(3):666–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lanea Bare for help in obtaining radiographs and Wen Wan, PhD for statistical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    Ashton H. Goldman

  2. Department of Radiology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1250 E Marshall St. 3rd Floor, PO Box 980615, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA

    Kevin B. Hoover

Authors
  1. Ashton H. Goldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin B. Hoover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin B. Hoover.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare we have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldman, A.H., Hoover, K.B. Source-to-detector distance and beam center do not affect radiographic measurements of acetabular morphology. Skeletal Radiol 46, 477–481 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2571-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2571-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation