We investigated the accuracy of measuring implant orientation after THA in standing position using EOS system (EOS Imaging Inc., Paris, France). Ninety patients who underwent THA were subjected to this study by comparing angles measured by EOS system and those measured from CT scans using 3D image analyzing software, ZedHip (LEXI, Tokyo, Japan). The radiographic cup inclination and anatomical cup anteversion were measured with respect to the anterior pelvic plane (APP) coordinate. The femoral stem antetorsion was analyzed by measuring the angles between the stem neck axis and the post-condylar axis in the femoral functional axis coordinate.
The differences (mean ± SD) (range of 95%CI) between angles measured by EOS system and those from CT scans in the cup inclination, cup anteversion, and stem antetorsion were − 2.3° ± 2.7° (−2.8°∼ − 1.7°), −0.1° ± 5.0° (−1.2°∼0.9°), and − 1.3° ± 6.5° (−2.7°∼0.1°), respectively. Cup inclination measured on 14 hips, cup anteversion measured on 28 hips, and stem antetorsion measured on 27 hips were classified as outliers whose differences were over 5°. Difficulties in defining the reference points for APP correlated with the incidences of the outliers in cup orientation measurements.
We could not set new reference points on the 3D bone surface models reconstructed by EOS system, so we have to use reference points defined on 2D images. In addition, the APP coordinate in EOS system was not the same as the standard definition. EOS system may not be used to measure the implant positions after THA until these problems will be improved.
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) Postoperative evaluation Implant orientation EOS system Validation
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors gratefully acknowledged Mr. Antoine Mousnier for his advices about the coordinates in EOS system.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Illes T, Somoskeoy S (2012) The EOS™ imaging system and its uses in daily orthopaedic practice. Int Orthop (SICOT) 36:1325–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwana D, Nakamura N, Miki H et al (2013) Accuracy of angle and position of the cup using computer tomography-based navigation system in total hip arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 18(5–6):187–194CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Schwarzkopf R, Vigdorchik JM, Miller TT et al (2017) Quantification of imaging error in the measurement of cup position: a cadaveric comparison of radiographic and computed tomography imaging. Orthop 40(6):952–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi S, Nishiyama T, Fujishiro T et al (2013) Evaluation of the ac-curacy of femoral component orientation by the CT-based fluoro-matched navigation system. Int Orthop (SICOT) 37:1063–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim TH, Lee SH, Yang JH et al (2012) Computed tomography assessment of image-free navigation-assisted cup placement in THA in an Asian population. Orthop 35(Suppl 10):13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steppacher SD, Tannast M, Zheng G et al (2009) Validation of a new method for determination of cup orientation in THA. J Orthop Res 27:1583–1588CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi K, Kai S, Sakamoto M et al (2014) Image registration method for assessing 3D hip alignment and implant position during standing posture. J Biomech Sci Eng 9(2):162–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendaya S, Anglin C, Lazennec JY et al (2016) Good vs poor results after total hip arthroplasty: an analysis method using implant and anatomic parameters with the EOS imaging system. J Arthroplast 31:2043–2052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polkowski GG, Nunley RM, Ruh EL et al (2012) Does standing affect acetabular component inclination and version after THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:2988–2994CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Lazennec JY, Rousseau MA, Rangel A et al (2011) Pelvis and total hip arthroplasty acetabular component orientations in sitting and standing positions: measurements reproducibility with EOS imaging system versus conventional radiographies. Orthop & Trauma: Surg & Res 97:373–380Google Scholar
Lazennec JY, Rousseau MA, Brusson A et al (2015) Total hip prostheses in standing, sitting and squatting positions: an overview of our 8 years practice using the EOS imaging technology. Open Orthop J 9: 26–44PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Monazzam S, Agashe M, Hosalkar HS (2013) Reliability of over-coverage parameters with varying morphologic pincer features: comparison of EOS and radiography. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2578–2585CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Journe A, Sadaka J, Belicourt C et al (2012) New method for measuring acetabular component positioning with EOS imaging: feasibility study on dry bone. Inter Orthop (SICOT) 36: 2205–2209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guenoun B, Hajj FE, Biau D et al (2015) Reliability of a new method for evaluating femoral stem positioning after total hip arthroplasty based on stereo-radiographic 3D reconstruction. J Arthroplast 30:141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humbert L, De Guise JA, Aubert A et al (2009) 3D reconstruction of the spine from bi-planar X-rays using parametric models based on transversal and longitudinal inferences. Med Eng Phys 31(6): 681–687CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Chaibi Y, Cresson T, Aubert B et al (2012) Fast 3D reconstruction of the lower limb using a parametric model and statistical inferences and clinical measurements calculation from bi-planar X-rays. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 15(5): 457–466CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Wu G, Siegler S, Allard P et al (2002) ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--part I: ankle, hip, and spine. Int Soc Biomech J Biomech 35:543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grood ES, Suntay WJ (1983) A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng 105:136–144CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Sato T, Koga Y, Sobue T et al (2007) Quantitative 3-dimensional analysis of preoperative and postoperative joint lines in total knee arthroplasty: a new concept for evaluation of component alignment. J Arthroplast 22:560–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kai S, Sato T, Koga Y et al (2014) Automatic construction of an anatomical coordinate system for three-dimensional bone models of the lower extremities–pelvis, femur, and tibia. Biomechanics 47(5):1229–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uemura K, Takao M, Otake Y et al (2017) Change in pelvic sagittal inclination from supine to standing position before hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 32(8):2568–2573CrossRefGoogle Scholar