Determination of digitised radiograph magnification factors for pre-operative templating in hip prosthesis surgery

ObjectiveWith digital radiography development, information technology (IT) companies have developed specific software for templating procedures, requiring individual magnification assessments for each patient. The aim of this study was to determine the mean magnification factor of digital radiographs and to evaluate the possibility of using the mean magnification factor or clinical information in templating.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 100 primary total hip arthroplasty digital radiographs using the femoral head prosthesis as a calliper to determinate the mean magnification factor. Working on the assumption that altitude of the hip during radiograph is decisive in modification of magnification factors, we also looked for a correlation between weight, body mass index (BMI), altitude and magnification factor.ResultsThe magnification factor was 126% (121–130%). A relationship was found between magnification factor (Mf) and weight (Mf = 7.10−4× weight (kg) + 1.21), but not BMI. In 98% of cases, if the weight-correlated formula is used, the sizing is correct or the error is ± 1 mm. With the mean method the sizing is correct or within 1 mm in only 78.2% of cases.ConclusionLevels of accuracy for the mean magnification factor and the weight-correlated formula are not as high as individual assessments using a calliper; however, they could be used in everyday practice where individual magnification factors have not been calculated.

[1]  K S Conn,et al.  A simple guide to determine the magnification of radiographs and to improve the accuracy of preoperative templating. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[2]  J. W. Knight,et al.  Preoperative planning for total hip arthroplastyQuantitating its utility and precision , 1992 .

[3]  M. Kransdorf,et al.  Surgical planning of total hip arthroplasty: accuracy of computer-assisted EndoMap software in predicting component size , 2006, Skeletal Radiology.

[4]  P. Peene,et al.  Radiological aspects in preoperative planning and postoperative assessment of cementless total hip arthroplasty. , 1993, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[5]  J. Knight,et al.  Preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. Quantitating its utility and precision. , 1992, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  J R van Horn,et al.  Digital correction of magnification in pelvic x rays for preoperative planning of hip joint replacements: theoretical development and clinical results of a new protocol. , 2005, Medical physics.

[7]  M J Oddy,et al.  Assessment of reproducibility and accuracy in templating hybrid total hip arthroplasty using digital radiographs. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[8]  J. Bono,et al.  Digital templating in total hip arthroplasty. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  E. Salvati,et al.  Preoperative Planning for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2005, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[10]  Nico Verdonschot,et al.  Comparison of Techniques for Correction of Magnification of Pelvic X-rays for Hip Surgery Planning , 2007, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[11]  J R van Horn,et al.  Digital correction of magnification in pelvic x rays for preoperative planning of hip joint replacements: Theoretical development and clinical results of a new protocol. , 2005, Medical physics.

[12]  S Wimsey,et al.  Accurate scaling of digital radiographs of the pelvis. A prospective trial of two methods. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[13]  Peter M A van Ooijen,et al.  Comparison of analog and digital preoperative planning in total hip and knee arthroplasties , 2005, Acta orthopaedica.

[14]  J R Hardy,et al.  Digital image analysis: improving accuracy and reproducibility of radiographic measurement. , 1999, Clinical biomechanics.