Analysis of acetabular orientation and femoral anteversion using images of three-dimensional reconstructed bone models

  • Jaeyeong Park
  • Jun-Young Kim
  • Hyun Deok Kim
  • Young Cheol Kim
  • Anna Seo
  • Minkyu Je
  • Jong Uk Mun
  • Bia Kim
  • Il Hyung Park
  • Shin-Yoon Kim
Original Article
  • 305 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Acetabular orientation Femoral anteversion Images of 3D reconstructed bone models 3D measurements Measurements using 2D slice images 

Supplementary material

11548_2016_1514_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (37.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pptx 38049 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    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):1577–1583CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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):621–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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):1063–1068CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babisch JW, Layher F, Amiot L-P (2008) The rationale for tilt-adjusted acetabular cup navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(2):357–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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):1290–1297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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):2987–2994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):1326–1331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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):369–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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):258–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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):65–70CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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):611–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 574–581Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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):487–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis J, Tarr R, Compere C, Zimmerman J (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):217–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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):48–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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):e172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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):386–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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):32–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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):1776–1780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murphy SB, Simon SR, Kijewski PK, Wilkinson RH, Griscom NT (1987) Femoral anteversion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69(8):1169–1176Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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):1079–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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):256–262CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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):e891Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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):373–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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):308–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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):1247–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 16:42CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hohne KH, Bernstein R (1986) Shading 3D-images from CT using gray-level gradients. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 5(1):45–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abbena E, Salamon S, Gray A (2006) Modern differential geometry of curves and surfaces with Mathematica. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bland JM, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327(8476):307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Murray D (1993) The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(2):228–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaeyeong Park
    • 1
  • Jun-Young Kim
    • 2
  • Hyun Deok Kim
    • 3
  • Young Cheol Kim
    • 3
  • Anna Seo
    • 3
  • Minkyu Je
    • 4
  • Jong Uk Mun
    • 5
  • Bia Kim
    • 6
  • Il Hyung Park
    • 2
  • Shin-Yoon Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Biomedical ScienceKyungpook National UniversityDaeguRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryKyungpook National University HospitalDaeguRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Institute of Advanced Convergence TechnologyKyungpook National UniversityDaeguRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.School of Electrical EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryChangwon Gyeongsang National University HospitalChangwonRepublic of Korea
  6. 6.Department of PsychologyPusan National UniversityPusanRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations