Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the available evidence for the clinical effectiveness of the EOS® 2D/3D X-ray imaging system for the evaluation and monitoring of scoliosis and other relevant orthopaedic conditions.
Methods
A systematic review of studies of EOS®, compared with standard X-ray film, computed radiography or digital radiography, of patients with orthopaedic conditions was undertaken. Ten electronic databases were searched. The quality of the included studies was assessed and a narrative synthesis undertaken.
Results
Three small, limited quality studies, primarily of children with scoliosis, were identified. No patient health outcomes were reported. Spinal image quality was comparable or better overall with EOS®. Radiation dose was considerably lower with EOS® than X-ray film or computed radiography; the mean entrance surface dose was over five times lower with EOS® for the posteroanterior spine radiograph and over six times lower for the lateral spine radiograph.
Conclusions
The available clinical evidence for EOS® is limited to establishing its basic technical ability. The technical advancements associated with EOS® (the ability to generate a full body scan and to construct a three-dimensional model from synchronously acquired lateral and posteroanterior images) have not been evaluated in terms of their ability to improve patient outcomes. Whilst radiation dose is a concern for orthopaedic patients who require repeated imaging, it is difficult to quantify the reductions in radiation dose seen with EOS® in terms of patient health benefits. Clinical studies that investigate the impact of EOS® on patient management are required.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Georges Charpak. The Nobel Foundation “The Nobel prize in physics 1992”. Available from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1992/index.html. Accessed 28 June 2012
Morvan G, Mathieu P, Vuillemin V, Guerini H, Bossard P, Zeitoun F, Wybier M (2011) Standardized way for imaging of the sagittal spinal balance. Eur Spine J 20:602–608
Gummerson NW, Millner PA (2010) Spinal fusion for scoliosis, clinical decision-making and choice of approach and devices. Skeletal Radiol 39:939–942
Stokes IAF (1994) Three-dimensional terminology of spinal deformity: a report presented to the Scoliosis Research Society by the Scoliosis Research Society working group on 3D terminology of spinal deformity. Spine 19:236–248
Illes T, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Somoskeoy S (2011) Breakthrough in three-dimensional scoliosis diagnosis: significance of horizontal plane view and vertebra vectors. Eur Spine J 20:135–143
Deacon P, Flood BM, Dickson RA (1984) Idiopathic scoliosis in three dimensions: a radiographic and morphometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66-B:509–512
Lazennec JY, Brusson A, Rousseau MA (2011) Hip–spine relations and sagittal balance clinical consequences. Eur Spine J 20:686–698
Ronckers CM, Land CE, Miller JS, Stovall M, Lonstein JE, Doody MM (2010) Cancer mortality among women frequently exposed to radiographic examinations for spinal disorders. Radiat Res 174:83–90
Seibert JA (2004) Tradeoffs between image quality and dose. Pediatr Radiol 34:S183–S195
Fryback DG, Thornbury JR (1991) The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 11:88
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009) Systematic reviews of clinical tests. In: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. University of York, York
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700
McKenna C, Wade R, Faria R, Yang H, Stirk L, Gummerson N, Sculpher N, Woolacott N (2012) EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 16:1–181
Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25
Kalifa G, Charpak Y, Maccia C, Fery-Lemonnier E, Bloch J, Boussard JM, Attal M, Dubousset J, Adamsbaum C (1998) Evaluation of a new low-dose digital X-ray device: first dosimetric and clinical results in children. Pediatr Radiol 28:557–561
Le Bras A, Dorion I, Ferey S, Maccia C, Parent S, Kalifa G Low dose 2D-3D X-ray scanning imaging for osteoarticular pathologies: initial results on scoliotic children (unpublished study)
Deschenes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G, Labelle H, Dubois J, Miron M-C, Parent S (2010) Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine 35:989–994
Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF (2007) Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK-2005 review. Health Protection Agency, Didcot, p 89
IIlharreborde B, Steffen JS, Nectoux E, Vital JM, Mazda K, Skalli W, Obeid I (2011) Angle measurement reproducibility using EOS three-dimensional reconstructions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior instrumentation. Spine 36:E1306–E1313
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Lisa Stirk, Information Specialist at the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination for devising the search strategy and carrying out the literature searches. We would like to thank the following for providing clinical advice: Professor Jeremy Fairbank, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust; Dr David Grier, Consultant Paediatric Radiologist, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children; Mr Peter Millner, Consultant Orthopaedic and Spinal Surgeon, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust; Dr James Rankine, Consultant Radiologist, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as project number HTA 10/67/01. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR HTA Programme. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors.
Conflict of interest
Nigel Gummerson has received travel, accommodation and course expenses unrelated to this piece of work from the following spinal implant companies: Biomet, DePuy, Zimmer, K2M, Medtronic and Synthes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wade, R., Yang, H., McKenna, C. et al. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system. Eur Spine J 22, 296–304 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2469-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2469-7