Archibeck Michael J, Cummins Tamara, Tripuraneni Krishna R, Carothers Joshua T, Murray-Krezan Cristina, Hattab Mohammad, White Richard E
New Mexico Orthopaedics, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
New Mexico Orthopaedics, 201 Cedar SE, Suite 6600, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Aug;474(8):1812-7. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4704-8. Epub 2016 Jan 21.
With the ubiquity of digital radiographs, the use of digital templating for arthroplasty has become commonplace. Although improved accuracy with digital radiographs and magnification markers is assumed, it has not been shown.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We wanted to (1) evaluate the accuracy of magnification markers in estimating the magnification of the true hip and (2) determine if the use of magnification markers improves on older techniques of assuming a magnification of 20% for all patients.
Between April 2013 and September 2013 we collected 100 AP pelvis radiographs of patients who had a THA prosthesis in situ and a magnification marker placed per the manufacturer's instructions. Radiographs seen during our standard radiographic review process, which met our inclusion criteria (AP pelvic view that included a well-positioned and observed magnification marker, and a prior total hip replacement with a known femoral head size), were included in the analysis. We then used OrthoView(TM) software program to calculate magnification of the radiograph using the magnification marker (measured magnification) and the femoral head of known size (true magnification).
The mean true magnification using the femoral head was 21% (SD, 2%). The mean magnification using the marker was 15% (SD, 5%). The 95% CI for the mean difference between the two measurements was 6% to 7% (p < 0.001). The use of a magnification marker to estimate magnification at the level of the hip using standard radiographic techniques was shown in this study to routinely underestimate the magnification of the radiograph using an arthroplasty femoral head of known diameter as the reference. If we assume a magnification of 20%, this more closely approximated the true magnification routinely. With this assumption, we were within 2% magnification in 64 of the 100 hips and off by 4% or more in only four hips. In contrast, using the magnification marker we were within 2% of true magnification in only 20 hips and were off by 4% or more in 59 hips.
We found the use of a magnification marker with digital radiographs for preoperative templating to be generally inaccurate, with a mean error of 6% and range from -5% to 15%. Additionally, these data suggest that the use of a magnification marker while taking preoperative radiographs of the hip may be unnecessary, as simply setting the software to assume a 20% magnification actually was more accurate.
Level III, diagnostic study.
随着数字X线片的普及,关节置换术中使用数字模板已变得很常见。尽管人们认为使用数字X线片和放大标记可提高准确性,但尚未得到证实。
问题/目的:我们想要(1)评估放大标记在估计真实髋关节放大率方面的准确性,以及(2)确定使用放大标记是否比以往对所有患者都假定放大率为20%的旧技术有所改进。
在2013年4月至2013年9月期间,我们收集了100例原位植入THA假体且按照制造商说明放置了放大标记的患者的前后位骨盆X线片。纳入分析的X线片是在我们的标准X线片检查过程中看到的,符合我们的纳入标准(包括位置良好且可观察到的放大标记的前后位骨盆视图,以及先前已知股骨头大小的全髋关节置换)。然后我们使用OrthoView(TM)软件程序,通过放大标记(测量放大率)和已知大小的股骨头(真实放大率)来计算X线片的放大率。
使用股骨头的平均真实放大率为21%(标准差,2%)。使用标记的平均放大率为15%(标准差,5%)。两次测量的平均差异的95%置信区间为6%至7%(p<0.001)。本研究表明,使用放大标记通过标准X线技术估计髋关节水平的放大率时,通常会低估以已知直径的关节置换股骨头为参考的X线片放大率。如果我们假定放大率为20%,则更接近常规的真实放大率。基于此假设,在100个髋关节中,有64个髋关节的放大率在2%以内,只有4个髋关节的放大率偏差超过4%。相比之下,使用放大标记时,只有20个髋关节的放大率在真实放大率的2%以内,59个髋关节的放大率偏差超过4%。
我们发现,在术前模板制作中使用带有数字X线片的放大标记通常不准确,平均误差为6%,范围从-5%到15%。此外,这些数据表明,在拍摄髋关节术前X线片时使用放大标记可能没有必要,因为简单地将软件设置为假定放大率为20%实际上更准确。
III级,诊断性研究。