Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Assessing precision and accuracy of false-profile hip radiographs.

MedStar author(s):

Citation: Hip International. :1120700019877848, 2019 Sep 23PMID: 31547722Institution: MedStar Union Memorial HospitalForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDYear: 2019 ISSN:

1120-7000

Name of journal: Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapyAbstract: CONCLUSIONS: The quality of FP radiographs obtained in the clinical setting may be inconsistent. Standardising FP imaging produces more accurate images. Appropriate FP radiographs should have a distance between hip centres that is approximately 0.5 times the same distance found on an anteroposterior (AP) radiograph.METHODS: An imaging protocol was developed to obtain FP radiographs. Pelvic rotation was calculated using the described method for FP images obtained in the 3 months prior to and after implementation of this protocol. Student's t-test and variance ratio tests were used to determine differences in mean and variance of pelvic rotation between the 2 cohorts. Pelvic rotation calculation methodology was validated by using fluoroscopic C-arm to obtain AP and rotated images of 10 osteologic pelvises. The ratio of the distance between hip centres of each rotated image and AP image (WP/W) was determined. Intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) was used to verify the relationship between WP/W and pelvic rotation.PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and precision of pelvic rotation in existing false-profile (FP) radiographs and to devise a method to improve accuracy and precision of FP radiographs.RESULTS: Mean WP/W was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.45-0.49). There were significant differences in mean pelvic rotation of the pre-protocol group (47.6degree; 95% CI, 45.6-49.5degree) and the post-protocol group (60.0degree; 95% CI, 58.7-61.3degree, p < 0.0001). Additionally, there was a significantly wider distribution of measurements in the pre-protocol group (SD = 7.9degree) compared to the post-protocol group (SD = 5.7degree, p = 0.0035).All authors: Gould H, Hu E, Li RT, Liu RW, Neral M, Salata MJFiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier:

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120700019877848

Date added to catalog: 2019-10-10

Holdings ( 1 )
Title notes ( 5 )

Holdings
Item type	Current library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Journal Article	MedStar Authors Catalog	Article	31547722	Available		31547722

CONCLUSIONS: The quality of FP radiographs obtained in the clinical setting may be inconsistent. Standardising FP imaging produces more accurate images. Appropriate FP radiographs should have a distance between hip centres that is approximately 0.5 times the same distance found on an anteroposterior (AP) radiograph.

METHODS: An imaging protocol was developed to obtain FP radiographs. Pelvic rotation was calculated using the described method for FP images obtained in the 3 months prior to and after implementation of this protocol. Student's t-test and variance ratio tests were used to determine differences in mean and variance of pelvic rotation between the 2 cohorts. Pelvic rotation calculation methodology was validated by using fluoroscopic C-arm to obtain AP and rotated images of 10 osteologic pelvises. The ratio of the distance between hip centres of each rotated image and AP image (WP/W) was determined. Intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) was used to verify the relationship between WP/W and pelvic rotation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and precision of pelvic rotation in existing false-profile (FP) radiographs and to devise a method to improve accuracy and precision of FP radiographs.

RESULTS: Mean WP/W was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.45-0.49). There were significant differences in mean pelvic rotation of the pre-protocol group (47.6degree; 95% CI, 45.6-49.5degree) and the post-protocol group (60.0degree; 95% CI, 58.7-61.3degree, p < 0.0001). Additionally, there was a significantly wider distribution of measurements in the pre-protocol group (SD = 7.9degree) compared to the post-protocol group (SD = 5.7degree, p = 0.0035).

English