Reliability of Overcoverage Parameters With Varying Morphologic Pincer Features: Comparison of EOS® and Radiography
- First Online:
- 319 Downloads
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.
- 3.Bushberg JT. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.Google Scholar
- 6.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.Google Scholar
- 8.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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.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.Google Scholar
- 25.Sharp IK. Acetabular dysplasia: the acetabular angle. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1961;43:268–272.Google Scholar
- 35.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.Google Scholar