Radiostereometric analysis: comparison of radiation dose and precision in digital and computed radiography.
Digital imaging
Image quality
Implant migration
Radiation dose
Radiostereometric analysis
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
23
08
2022
accepted:
23
10
2022
medline:
28
8
2023
pubmed:
25
11
2022
entrez:
24
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) is used to measure fixation of joint prosthesis. This study compared radiation dose and image quality of a digital radiography (DR) RSA system and a computed radiography (CR) RSA system in a clinical setting. RSA recordings of 24 hips and shoulders were analyzed. We compared two systems: (1) Arcoma T0 with ST-VI image plates and Profect CR-IR 363 reader to (2) AdoraRSA with CXDI-70C wireless DR detectors in a clinical uniplanar RSA set-up with a ± 20 degrees tube angulation and 35 cm × 43 cm detectors. Effective dose was calculated using dedicated software. Image quality was evaluated using calibration errors as calculated by the RSA software. The mean dose for hips was 0.14 (SD 0.04) mSv in the CR system and 0.05 (SD 0.02) mSv in the DR system. The mean dose for shoulders was 0.16 (SD 0.07) mSv in the CR system and 0.09 (SD 0.03) mSv in the DR system. Radiation dose was 64% (p < 0.001) and 43% (p = 0.03) lower in the DR system compared with the CR system for hip and shoulder RSA, respectively. Image quality was better for the DR system with 60-80% less calibration errors compared to the CR system. Owing to highly efficient detectors and added filtration at the x-ray tubes, the DR system considerably reduced radiation dose compared with the CR system without compromising image quality. Based on the findings in this study, we recommend replacing CR RSA systems with DR RSA systems. Patients were selected from clinical studies performed on the two systems and approved by the local ethics committee [20060165, M-20100112, M-20070082, M-20110224, and 20070258] and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT00408096, NCT01289834, NCT00913679, NCT02311179, and NCT00679120].
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) is used to measure fixation of joint prosthesis. This study compared radiation dose and image quality of a digital radiography (DR) RSA system and a computed radiography (CR) RSA system in a clinical setting.
METHODS
METHODS
RSA recordings of 24 hips and shoulders were analyzed. We compared two systems: (1) Arcoma T0 with ST-VI image plates and Profect CR-IR 363 reader to (2) AdoraRSA with CXDI-70C wireless DR detectors in a clinical uniplanar RSA set-up with a ± 20 degrees tube angulation and 35 cm × 43 cm detectors. Effective dose was calculated using dedicated software. Image quality was evaluated using calibration errors as calculated by the RSA software.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean dose for hips was 0.14 (SD 0.04) mSv in the CR system and 0.05 (SD 0.02) mSv in the DR system. The mean dose for shoulders was 0.16 (SD 0.07) mSv in the CR system and 0.09 (SD 0.03) mSv in the DR system. Radiation dose was 64% (p < 0.001) and 43% (p = 0.03) lower in the DR system compared with the CR system for hip and shoulder RSA, respectively. Image quality was better for the DR system with 60-80% less calibration errors compared to the CR system.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Owing to highly efficient detectors and added filtration at the x-ray tubes, the DR system considerably reduced radiation dose compared with the CR system without compromising image quality. Based on the findings in this study, we recommend replacing CR RSA systems with DR RSA systems.
REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Patients were selected from clinical studies performed on the two systems and approved by the local ethics committee [20060165, M-20100112, M-20070082, M-20110224, and 20070258] and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT00408096, NCT01289834, NCT00913679, NCT02311179, and NCT00679120].
Identifiants
pubmed: 36422666
doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04674-0
pii: 10.1007/s00402-022-04674-0
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00679120', 'NCT01289834', 'NCT02311179', 'NCT00408096', 'NCT00913679']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5919-5926Subventions
Organisme : Innovationsfonden
ID : 69-2013-1
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Selvik G (1989) Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. A method for the study of the kinematics of the skeletal system. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 232:1–51. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678909154184
doi: 10.3109/17453678909154184
pubmed: 2686344
Valstar ER, Nelissen RGHH, Reiber JHC, Rozing PM (2002) The use of Roentgen stereophotogrammetry to study micromotion of orthopaedic implants. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 56:376–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0924-2716(02)00064-3
doi: 10.1016/s0924-2716(02)00064-3
Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, Stoel BC, Rozing PM, Reiber JHC (2003) A new model-based RSA method validated using CAD models and models from reversed engineering. J Biomech 36:873–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00002-2
doi: 10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00002-2
pubmed: 12742455
Karrholm J, Gill RH, Valstar ER (2006) The history and future of radiostereometric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 448:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000224001.95141.fe
doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000224001.95141.fe
pubmed: 16826090
Korner M, Weber CH, Wirth S et al (2007) Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview. Radiographics 27:675–686. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.273065075
doi: 10.1148/rg.273065075
pubmed: 17495286
Neitzel U (2005) Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:32–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch532
doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch532
pubmed: 15933078
Teeuwisse W BR, Geleijns J (1998) Stralenbelasting bij orthopedische radiologie n.d. Gamma:3.
Blom IF, Koster LA, Brinke BT, Mathijssen NMC (2020) Effective radiation dose in radiostereometric analysis of the hip. Acta Orthop 91:390–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1767443
doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1767443
pubmed: 32452270
Lindgren LJP, Mørup RMS, Jensen M, Rømer L, Kaptein B, Stilling M (2019) Similar patient positioning: A key factor in follow-up studies when using model-based radiostereometric analysis of the hip. Radiography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.009.10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.009
doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.009.10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.009
pubmed: 32052775
Tapiovaara M, Siiskonen T (2008) A PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations.
Duda RO, Hart PE (1972) Use of the Hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures. Commun ACM 15:11–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/361237.361242
doi: 10.1145/361237.361242
Vrooman HA, Valstar ER, Brand GJ et al (1998) Fast and accurate automated measurements in digitized stereophotogrammetric radiographs. J Biomech 31:491–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9290(98)00025-6
doi: 10.1016/s0021-9290(98)00025-6
pubmed: 9727348
Shetty CM, Barthur A, Kambadakone A, Narayanan N, Kv R (2011) Computed radiography image artifacts revisited. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W37-47. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5563
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5563
pubmed: 21178029