The Radiograph

  • Eric HughesEmail author
  • Prudencia N. M. Tyrrell
  • Victor N. Cassar-Pullicino
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


Radiographs have been used in diagnosis for over 100 years. Despite the many technical advances in imaging, they retain an important role in the diagnostic workup of many ailments particularly in bone and joint pathology. They are often used in imaging follow-up of disease states to evaluate progression, monitor treatment or assess metalwork or implants following surgery. It is possible from the radiographs to make measurements which aid in diagnosis or subsequent management of a condition. Sometimes, these measurements are crude representing an observation such as the presence of prevertebral soft tissue swelling in a patient with a history of cervical spine injury where that observation signals a very high probability of either bone or soft tissue injury. On other occasions, precise measurements may be required such as in leg length evaluation which may determine the degree and extent of surgical intervention if indeed any. They also are often used for measuring distances and angles in musculoskeletal work to assist in the planning of management including surgery. There are inherent advantages in using radiographs for such measurements, but there are also certain limitations often related to technical factors of which clinicians and radiologists need to be aware. This chapter addresses the general role of radiography in measurements undertaken in musculoskeletal work. The specific role of radiography in measurements of different anatomical and pathological states is made in the relevant chapters.


  1. Buckland-Wright C (1995) Protocols for precise radio anatomical positioning of the tibiofemoral and patellofemoral compartments of the knee. Osteoarthr Cartil 3(Suppl A):71–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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-B:136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Greulich W, Pyle S (1959) Radiographic atlas of the skeletal development of the hand and wrist. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hankemeier S, Gosling T, Richter M, Hufner T, Hochhausen C, Krettek C (2006) Computer-assisted analysis of lower limb geometry: higher intraobserver reliability compared to conventional method. Comput Aided Surg 11(2):81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Merchant AC, Mercer RL, Jacobsen RH, Cool CR (1974) Roentgenographic analysis of patellofemoral congruence. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56:1391–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Risser JC (1958) The iliac apophysis: an invaluable sign in the management of scoliosis. Clin Orthop 11:111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sauvegrain J, Nahm H, Bronstein N (1962) Etude de la maturation asseuse du coude. Ann Radiol 5:542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Tanner J, Whitehouse R, Marshall W et al (1975) Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW2 method). Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Walker C, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Vaisha R, McCall IW (1993) The patello-femoral joint—a critical appraisal of its geometric assessment utilising conventional axial radiography and computed arthrotomography. Br J Radiol 66(789):755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ward RJ, Buckland-Wright JC (2008) Rates of medial tibiofemoral joint space narrowing in osteoarthritis studies consistent despite methodological differences. Osteoarthr Cartil 16(3):330–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Hughes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Prudencia N. M. Tyrrell
    • 1
  • Victor N. Cassar-Pullicino
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyRobert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation TrustOswestryUK

Personalised recommendations