Is it Important to Know Where to Place the Spherical Marker for Hip Replacement Digital Planning?^[*]

Abstract

Objective The present paper aims to evaluate the influences of individual characteristics in radiographic magnification and to identify the most accurate method for radiographic calibration.

Methods During radiographical exam of 50 patients with hip prosthesis, anthropometric data was collected and 4 spherical metal markers with 25 mm diameters were positioned: at the greater trochanter level and lateral to it, over the pubic symphysis, between the thighs at the greater trochanter level, and over the exam table. Since the prosthesis head is the best internal radiographic marker for hip arthroplasty, it was our calibration parameter. Two examiners measured the markers' image for further analysis.

Results The sample consisted of 50 participants, 19 of whom were male. A difference in pubic symphysis magnification was found. Other individual characteristics (weight, height and body mass index) had weak correlation. The higher accuracy of the markers was at the greater trochanter, between 68.4 and 78.9%, visualized in only19 radiographs. The marker positioned between the thighs was visualized in all radiographs, with an accuracy ranging from 30 to 46%.

Conclusions Of all individual characteristics, only gender influences magnification at the pubic symphysis. We suggest the use of two spherical markers: at the greater trochanter, due the best accuracy, and between the thighs, considered the best positioning for better visibility.

Keywords

arthroplasty, replacement, hip - hip prosthesis - radiography - pelvis - radiographic magnification

^* Work performed at the Grupo de Quadril do Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia da Faculdade de Ciências Médicas Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo (FCMSCSP), São Paulo, SP, Brasil

• Referências

• 1 Muller ME. Total hip replacement: planning, technique and complications. In: Cruess RL, Mitchell NS. Surgical management of degenerative arthritis of the lower limb. Philadelphia: Lea and Faber; 1975: 90-113
• 2 Müller ME. Lessons of 30 years of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (274) 12-21
• 3 Knight JL, Atwater RD. Preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. Quantitating its utility and precision. J Arthroplasty 1992; 7 (Suppl): 403-409
• 4 Hoikka V, Paavilainen T, Lindholm TS, Turula KB, Ylikoski M. Measurement and restoration of equality in length of the lower limbs in total hip replacement. Skeletal Radiol 1987; 16 (06) 442-446
• 5 Eggli S, Pisan M, Müller ME. The value of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (03) 382-390
• 6 Baghdadi YM, Larson AN, Sierra RJ. Restoration of the hip center during THA performed for protrusio acetabuli is associated with better implant survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (10) 3251-3259
• 7 Miashiro EH, Fujiki EN, Yamaguchi EN. , et al. Preoperative planning of primary total hip arthroplasty using conventional radiographs. Rev Bras Ortop 2014; 49 (02) 140-148
• 8 Gamble P, de Beer J, Petruccelli D, Winemaker M. The accuracy of digital templating in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (04) 529-532
• 9 The B, Verdonschot N, van Horn JR, van Ooijen PM, Diercks RL. Digital versus analogue preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasties: a randomized clinical trial of 210 total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (06) 866-870
• 10 Heep H, Xu J, Löchteken C, Wedemeyer C. A simple and convenient method guide to determine the magnification of digital X-rays for preoperative planning in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2012; 4 (01) e12
• 11 Archibeck MJ, Cummins T, Tripuraneni KR. , et al. Inaccuracies in the use of magnification markers in digital hip radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (08) 1812-1817
• 12 Franken M, Grimm B, Heyligers I. A comparison of four systems for calibration when templating for total hip replacement with digital radiography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (01) 136-141
• 13 Polesello GC, Nakao TS, Queiroz MC. , et al. Proposta de padronização do estudo radiográfico do quadril e da pelve. Rev Bras Ortop 2011; 46 (06) 634-642
• 14 Blake CA, van der Merwe J, Raubenheimer JE. A practical way to calibrate digital radiographs in hip arthroplasty. SA Orthop J 2013; 12 (04) 33-37 . Disponível em: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1681-150×2013000500006&lng=en
• 15 Heinert G, Hendricks J, Loeffler MD. Digital templating in hip replacement with and without radiological markers. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (04) 459-462
• 16 Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 1983; 32 (03) 307-317
• 17 Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986
• 18 Kirkwood BR, Sterne JA. Essential medical statistics. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Blackwell Science; 2006
• 19 Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 1995
• 20 The B, Diercks RL, Stewart RE, van Ooijen PM, van Horn JR. Digital correction of magnification in pelvic x rays for preoperative planning of hip joint replacements: theoretical development and clinical results of a new protocol. Med Phys 2005; 32 (08) 2580-2589
• 21 Wimsey S, Pickard R, Shaw G. Accurate scaling of digital radiographs of the pelvis. A prospective trial of two methods. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (11) 1508-1512
• 22 Kosashvili Y, Shasha N, Olschewski E. , et al. Digital versus conventional templating techniques in preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. Can J Surg 2009; 52 (01) 6-11