Dose, image quality and spine modeling assessment of biplanar EOS micro-dose radiographs for the follow-up of in-brace adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients

  • Baptiste Morel
  • Sonia Moueddeb
  • Eleonore Blondiaux
  • Stephen Richard
  • Manon Bachy
  • Raphael Vialle
  • Hubert Ducou Le Pointe
Original Article
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the radiation dose, image quality and 3D spine parameter measurements of EOS low-dose and micro-dose protocols for in-brace adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients.

Methods

We prospectively included 25 consecutive patients (20 females, 5 males) followed for AIS and undergoing brace treatment. The mean age was 12 years (SD 2 years, range 8–15 years). For each patient, in-brace biplanar EOS radiographs were acquired in a standing position using both the conventional low-dose and micro-dose protocols. Dose area product (DAP) was systematically recorded. Diagnostic image quality was qualitatively assessed by two radiologists for visibility of anatomical structures. The reliability of 3D spine modeling between two operators was quantitatively evaluated for the most clinically relevant 3D radiological parameters using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

The mean DAP for the posteroanterior and lateral acquisitions was 300 ± 134 and 433 ± 181 mGy cm2 for the low-dose radiographs, and 41 ± 19 and 81 ± 39 mGy cm2 for micro-dose radiographs. Image quality was lower with the micro-dose protocol. The agreement was “good” to “very good” for all measured clinical parameters when comparing the low-dose and micro-dose protocols (ICC > 0.73).

Conclusion

The micro-dose protocol substantially reduced the delivered dose (by a factor of 5–7 compared to the low-dose protocol) in braced children with AIS. Although image quality was reduced, the micro-dose protocol proved to be adapted to radiological follow-up, with adequate image quality and reliable clinical measurements.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis EOS imaging system Biplanar radiographs Pediatric radiology 3D measurements 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Ethical statement

The local institutional review board approved this single center, non-interventional, prospective study.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5464_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (672 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 673 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ilharreborde B, Sebag G, Skalli W, Mazda K (2013) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with posteromedial translation: radiologic evaluation with a 3D low-dose system. Eur Spine J 22:2382–2391CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hong J-Y, Suh S-W, Easwar TR et al (2011) Evaluation of the three-dimensional deformities in scoliosis surgery with computed tomography: efficacy and relationship with clinical outcomes. Spine 36:E1259–E1265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Courvoisier A, Drevelle X, Dubousset J, Skalli W (2013) Transverse plane 3D analysis of mild scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22:2427–2432CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nault M-L, Mac-Thiong J-M, Roy-Beaudry M et al (2014) Three-dimensional spinal morphology can differentiate between progressive and non-progressive patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at the initial presentation. Spine 39(10):E601CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blumer SL, Dinan D, Grissom LE (2014) Benefits and unexpected artifacts of biplanar digital slot-scanning imaging in children. Pediatr Radiol 44:871–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z et al (2013) Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346:f2360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bone CM, Hsieh GH (2000) The risk of carcinogenesis from radiographs to pediatric orthopaedic patients. J Pediatr Orthop 20:251–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levy AR, Goldberg MS, Mayo NE et al (1996) Reducing the lifetime risk of cancer from spinal radiographs among people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 21:1540–1547 (discussion 1548)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Law M, Ma W-K, Lau D et al (2016) Cumulative radiation exposure and associated cancer risk estimates for scoliosis patients: impact of repetitive full spine radiography. Eur J Radiol 85:625–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ronckers CM, Land CE, Miller JS et al (2010) Cancer mortality among women frequently exposed to radiographic examinations for spinal disorders. Radiat Res 174:83–90CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sodhi KS, Krishna S, Saxena AK et al (2015) Clinical application of “justification” and “optimization” principle of ALARA in pediatric CT imaging: ‘how many children can be protected from unnecessary radiation?’ Eur J Radiol 84(9):1752–1757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ilharreborde B, Ferrero E, Alison M, Mazda K (2016) EOS microdose protocol for the radiological follow-up of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 25:526–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Newton PO, Khandwala Y, Bartley CE et al (2016) New EOS imaging protocol allows a substantial reduction in radiation exposure for scoliosis patients. Spine Deform 4:138–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubousset J, Ilharreborde B, Le Huec J-C (2014) Use of EOS imaging for the assessment of scoliosis deformities: application to postoperative 3D quantitative analysis of the trunk. Eur Spine J 23(4):397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Union. European Commission; Directorate-General XII-Science R and D (1996) European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in paediatrics. Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deschênes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G et al (2010) Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine 35:989–994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Presciutti SM, Karukanda T, Lee M (2014) Management decisions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis significantly affect patient radiation exposure. Spine J 14:1984–1990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Law M, Ma W-K, Chan E et al (2017) Evaluation of cumulative effective dose and cancer risk from repetitive full spine imaging using EOS system: impact to adolescent patients of different populations. Eur J Radiol 96:1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rehm J, Germann T, Akbar M et al (2017) 3D-modeling of the spine using EOS imaging system: inter-reader reproducibility and reliability. PLoS ONE 12:e0171258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carreau JH, Bastrom T, Petcharaporn M et al (2014) Computer-generated, three-dimensional spine model from biplanar radiographs: a validity study in idiopathic scoliosis curves greater than 50 degrees. Spine Deform 2:81–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pasha S, Capraro A, Cahill PJ et al (2016) Bi-planar spinal stereoradiography of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: considerations in 3D alignment and functional balance. Eur Spine J 25:3234–3241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Branchini M, Del Vecchio A, Gigliotti CR et al (2017) Organ doses and lifetime attributable risk evaluations for scoliosis examinations of adolescent patients with the EOS imaging system. Radiol Med.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0828-5PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiology DepartmentClocheville Hospital, CHRU ToursToursFrance
  2. 2.Radiology DepartmentArmand Trousseau Hospital, AHHP ParisParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric Imaging, Armand Trousseau HospitalPierre et Marie Curie-Paris UniversityParisFrance
  4. 4.Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers ParisTechParisFrance
  5. 5.The MAMUTH Hospital, University Department for Innovative Therapies in Musculoskeletal Diseases, Armand Trousseau HospitalParisFrance
  6. 6.Department of Pediatric RadiologyClocheville HospitalToursFrance

Personalised recommendations