Validating the use of 3D biplanar radiography versus CT when measuring femoral anteversion after total hip arthroplasty : a comparative study.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
AIMS: Although CT is considered the benchmark to measure femoral version, 3D biplanar radiography (hipEOS) has recently emerged as a possible alternative with reduced exposure to ionizing radiation and shorter examination time. The aim of our study was to evaluate femoral stem version in postoperative total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients and compare the accuracy of hipEOS to CT. We hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in calculated femoral stem version measurements between the two imaging methods. METHODS: In this study, 45 patients who underwent THA between February 2016 and February 2020 and had both a postoperative CT and EOS scan were included for evaluation. A fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist and radiological technician measured femoral version for CT and 3D EOS, respectively. Comparison of values for each imaging modality were assessed for statistical significance. RESULTS: Comparison of the mean postoperative femoral stem version measurements between CT and 3D hipEOS showed no significant difference (p = 0.862). In addition, the two version measurements were strongly correlated (r = 0.95; p < 0.001), and the mean paired difference in postoperative femoral version for CT scan and 3D biplanar radiography was -0.09° (95% confidence interval -1.09 to 0.91). Only three stem measurements (6.7%) were considered outliers with a > 5° difference. CONCLUSION: Our study supports the use of low-dose biplanar radiography for the postoperative assessment of femoral stem version after THA, demonstrating high correlation with CT. We found no significant difference for postoperative femoral version when comparing CT to 3D EOS. We believe 3D EOS is a reliable option to measure postoperative femoral version given its advantages of lower radiation dosage and shorter examination time.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1196-1201.
