Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 589–595 | Cite as

Dual-position calibration markers for total hip arthroplasty: theoretical comparison to fixed calibration and single marker method

  • Christoph Kolja BoeseEmail author
  • Sebastian Wilhelm
  • Stefan Haneder
  • Philipp Lechler
  • Peer Eysel
  • Jan Bredow
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Digital templating is considered a standard for total hip arthroplasty. Different means for the necessary calibration of radiographs are known. While single marker calibration with radiopaque spheres is the most common, it is associated with possible significant deviations from the true magnification of the hip. Notably, fixed magnification factors showed better results. Therefore, a dual-position calibration marker method was simulated and compared to the established methods.

Methods

First, an empirical fixed magnification factor was identified and applied to a series of radiographs. Second, three magnification factors were generated based on sagittal patient data of 398 CT scans. These methods were compared to the fixed factor.

Results

The fixed factor was 122.6%. In the clinical application, the error of the fixed factor was 2.5% while the error of the single marker was 5.2%. In the CT cohort, the mean reference factor was 120.5% in females and 120.3% in males. The reference factor was compared to sex-specific means, sex-specific linear functions, and sex-specific cubic functions. The best results were found for the linear regression model with a mean difference of 0.8% from the reference value. No proportional bias was found (p = 0.623).

Conclusion

The simulation of the dual-position marker method using the linear regression model showed promising results, superior to all other methods. In future studies, its clinical application should be tested.

Keywords

Planning techniques Arthroplasty Calibration Total hip replacement Diagnostic imaging 

Abbreviations

Abs

Absolute

APP

Anterior pelvic plane

CT

Computed tomography

ECM

External calibration marker

MF

Magnification factor

Min

Minimum

Max

Maximum

THA

Total hip arthroplasty

SD

Standard deviation

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

CKB is an employee of Smith & Nephew GmbH, Germany. CKB may receive royalties from Medicad Hectec GmbH, Germany.

References

  1. 1.
    Marcucci M et al (2013) A multimodal approach in total hip arthroplasty preoperative templating. Skelet Radiol 42(9):1287–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Franken M, Grimm B, Heyligers I (2010) A comparison of four systems for calibration when templating for total hip replacement with digital radiography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(1):136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boese CK et al (2016) Calibration marker position in digital templating of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 31(4):883–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boese CK et al (2015) Calibration markers for digital templating in total hip arthroplasty. PLoS One 10(7):e0128529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kulkarni A et al (2008) Disc calibration for digital templating in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(12):1623–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baxter JA et al (2012) The accuracy of automatic calibration of digital pelvic radiographs using two different scale markers: a comparative study. Hip Int 22(1):82–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    King RJ et al (2009) A novel method of accurately calculating the radiological magnification of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(9):1217–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reize P et al (2006) Prediction of the location of the centre of rotation of the hip joint external landmarks. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 144(5):492–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sinclair VF et al (2014) Assessment of accuracy of marker ball placement in pre-operative templating for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29(8):1658–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boese CK et al (2016) The neck shaft angle: CT reference values of 800 adult hips. Skelet Radiol 45(4):455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boese CK et al (2016) Agreement between proximal femoral geometry and component design in total hip arthroplasty: implications for implant choice. J Arthroplast 31(8):1842–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bayne CO, Krosin M, Barber TC (2009) Evaluation of the accuracy and use of x-ray markers in digital templating for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 24(3):407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma SurgeryUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany
  3. 3.Center of Orthopedic and Trauma SurgeryUniversity of Giessen and MarburgMarburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of Spine SurgerySchön Klinik DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany
  5. 5.Center for Orthopedics, Schön Klinik Düsseldorf SE & Co. KGDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations