Analysis of acetabular orientation and femoral anteversion using images of three-dimensional reconstructed bone models

PurposeRadiographic measurements using two-dimensional (2D) plain radiographs or planes from computed tomography (CT) scans have several drawbacks, while measurements using images of three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed bone models can provide more consistent anthropometric information. We compared the consistency of results using measurements based on images of 3D reconstructed bone models (3D measurements) with those using planes from CT scans (measurements using 2D slice images).MethodsNinety-six of 561 patients who had undergone deep vein thrombosis-CT between January 2013 and November 2014 were randomly selected. We evaluated measurements using 2D slice images and 3D measurements. The images used for 3D reconstruction of bone models were obtained and measured using $$\hbox {Mimics}^{\mathrm{\textregistered }}$$Mimics® and $$\hbox {3-Matics}^{\mathrm{\textregistered }}$$3-Matics® (Materialize, Leuven, Belgium).ResultsThe mean acetabular inclination, acetabular anteversion and femoral anteversion values on 2D slice images were 42.01$$^{\circ }$$∘, 18.64$$^{\circ }$$∘ and 14.44$$^{\circ }$$∘, respectively, while those using images of 3D reconstructed bone models were 52.80$$^{\circ }$$∘, 14.98$$^{\circ }$$∘ and 17.26$$^{\circ }$$∘. Intra-rater reliabilities for acetabular inclination, acetabular anteversion, and femoral anteversion on 2D slice images were 0.55, 0.81, and 0.85, respectively, while those for 3D measurements were 0.98, 0.99, and 0.98. Inter-rater reliabilities for acetabular inclination, acetabular anteversion and femoral anteversion on 2D slice images were 0.48, 0.86, and 0.84, respectively, while those for 3D measurements were 0.97, 0.99, and 0.97.ConclusionThe differences between the two measurements are explained by the use of different tools. However, more consistent measurements were possible using the images of 3D reconstructed bone models. Therefore, 3D measurement can be a good alternative to measurement using 2D slice images.

[1]  S B Murphy,et al.  Femoral anteversion. , 2020, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  R. Bernstein,et al.  Shading 3D-Images from CT Using Gray-Level Gradients , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  Guoan Li,et al.  Does total hip arthroplasty restore native hip anatomy? Three-dimensional reconstruction analysis , 2014, International Orthopaedics.

[4]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[5]  S Parratte,et al.  The use of ultrasound in acquisition of the anterior pelvic plane in computer-assisted total hip replacement: a cadaver study. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[6]  K. Park,et al.  Utility of Preoperative Femoral Neck Geometry in Predicting Femoral Stem Anteversion. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  Liao Wang,et al.  The use of combined anteversion in total hip arthroplasty for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  S. Harris,et al.  Functional acetabular component position with supine total hip replacement. , 2013, The bone & joint journal.

[9]  K. Dai,et al.  Differences in acetabular morphology related to side and sex in a Chinese population , 2012, Journal of anatomy.

[10]  P. Asbach,et al.  3D CT analysis of combined cup and stem anteversion in cases of cup navigation in hip arthroplasty. , 2010, Orthopedics.

[11]  W. C. Shin,et al.  The reliability and accuracy of measuring anteversion of the acetabular component on plain anteroposterior and lateral radiographs after total hip arthroplasty. , 2015, The bone & joint journal.

[12]  Michał Rychlik,et al.  An accurate method of radiological assessment of acetabular volume and orientation in computed tomography spatial reconstruction , 2015, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[13]  A. Gray,et al.  Modern Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces with Mathematica, Third Edition (Studies in Advanced Mathematics) , 2006 .

[14]  B. Jaramaz,et al.  Imaging and Navigation Measurement of Acetabular Component Position in THA , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  D. Murray The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[16]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[17]  F. Layher,et al.  The rationale for tilt-adjusted acetabular cup navigation. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  H. Gill,et al.  Comparison of native anatomy with recommended safe component orientation in total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  Ho Hyun Yun,et al.  A validation study for estimation of femoral anteversion using the posterior lesser trochanter line: an analysis of computed tomography measurement. , 2013, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  M. Pagnano,et al.  What Safe Zone? The Vast Majority of Dislocated THAs Are Within the Lewinnek Safe Zone for Acetabular Component Position , 2016, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  John D. Koerner,et al.  Femoral Version of the General Population: Does “Normal” Vary by Gender or Ethnicity? , 2013, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[22]  Bin Yu,et al.  Femoral Version, Neck-Shaft Angle, and Acetabular Anteversion in Chinese Han Population , 2015, Medicine.

[23]  S. Weinstein,et al.  The natural history and long-term follow-up of Scheuermann kyphosis. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[24]  J. Lewis,et al.  Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. , 1978, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[25]  T. Renkawitz,et al.  Measuring Acetabular Cup Orientation on Antero-Posterior Radiographs of the Hip after Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Vector Arithmetic Radiological Method. Is It Valid and Verified for Daily Clinical Practice? , 2016, Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren.

[26]  Stewart C. Wang,et al.  A Computed Tomography Study of Gender Differences in Acetabular Version and Morphology: Implications for Femoroacetabular Impingement. , 2015, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[27]  Evaluation of the accuracy of femoral component orientation by the CT-based fluoro-matched navigation system , 2013, International Orthopaedics.

[28]  Matthias Wiese,et al.  Misinterpretation of cup anteversion in total hip arthroplasty using planar radiography , 2006, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[29]  H. Gill,et al.  The relationship between operative and radiographic acetabular component orientation: which factors influence resultant cup orientation? , 2014, The bone & joint journal.

[30]  B. Ghelman,et al.  Acetabular Version Measurement in Total Hip Arthroplasty: the Impact of Inclination and the Value of Multi-Planar CT Reformation , 2015, HSS Journal ®.

[31]  Peter J Diggle,et al.  A new technique for radiographic measurement of acetabular cup orientation. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[32]  Ming-yu Lu,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Measuring Acetabular Component Orientation by Plain Anteroposterior Radiographs , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[33]  Matthew V. Smith,et al.  Gender and racial differences in focal and global acetabular version. , 2014, Journal of Arthroplasty.