Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 5/2004

01-05-2004 | Musculoskeletal

Are digital images good enough? A comparative study of conventional film-screen vs digital radiographs on printed images of total hip replacement

Authors: K. Eklund, K. Jonsson, G. Lindblom, B. Lundin, J. Sanfridsson, M. Sloth, B. Sivberg

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2004

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter- and intra-observer variability and to find differences in diagnostic safety between digital and analog technique in diagnostic zones around hip prostheses. In 80 patients who had had a total hip replacement (THR) for more than 2 years, a conventional image and a digital image were taken. Gruen’s model of seven distinct regions of interest was used for evaluations. Five experienced radiologists observed the seven regions and noted in a protocol the following distances: stem–cement; cement–bone; and stem–bone. All images were printed on hard copies and were read twice. Weighted kappa, κw, analyses were used. The two most frequently loosening regions, stem–cement region 1 and cement–bone region 7, were closely analyzed. In region 1 the five observers had an agreement of 86.75–97.92% between analog and digital images in stem–cement, which is a varied κw 0.29–0.71. For cement–bone region 7 an agreement of 87.21–90.45% was found, which is a varied κw of 0.48–0.58. All the kappa values differ significantly from nil. The result shows that digital technique is as good as analog radiographs for diagnosing possible loosening of hip prostheses.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kotter E, Langer M (2002) Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detectors. Eur Radiol 12:2562–2570PubMed Kotter E, Langer M (2002) Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detectors. Eur Radiol 12:2562–2570PubMed
2.
go back to reference Pettersson H (1992) Digital skeletal radiography. In: Resnick D, Pettersson H (eds) Skeletal radiography, NICER series on diagnostic imaging. Merit Communications, London, pp 1–8 Pettersson H (1992) Digital skeletal radiography. In: Resnick D, Pettersson H (eds) Skeletal radiography, NICER series on diagnostic imaging. Merit Communications, London, pp 1–8
3.
go back to reference Jónsson A, Borg A, Hannesson P, Herrlin K, Jonsson K, Sloth, M, Pettersson H (1994) Film-screen vs digital radiography in rheumatoid arthritis of the hand: an ROC analysis. Acta Radiol 35:311–318PubMed Jónsson A, Borg A, Hannesson P, Herrlin K, Jonsson K, Sloth, M, Pettersson H (1994) Film-screen vs digital radiography in rheumatoid arthritis of the hand: an ROC analysis. Acta Radiol 35:311–318PubMed
4.
go back to reference Jónsson A, Hannesson P, Herrlin K, Jonsson K, Andersen R, Pettersson H (1995) Computed vs film-screen magnification radiography of fingers in hyperparathyroidism: an ROC analysis. Acta Radiol 36:290–294PubMed Jónsson A, Hannesson P, Herrlin K, Jonsson K, Andersen R, Pettersson H (1995) Computed vs film-screen magnification radiography of fingers in hyperparathyroidism: an ROC analysis. Acta Radiol 36:290–294PubMed
5.
go back to reference Pettersson H, Aspelin P, Boijsen E, Herrlin K, Egund N (1988) Digital radiography of the spine, large bones, and joints using stimulable phosphor; early clinical experience. Acta Radiol 29:267–271PubMed Pettersson H, Aspelin P, Boijsen E, Herrlin K, Egund N (1988) Digital radiography of the spine, large bones, and joints using stimulable phosphor; early clinical experience. Acta Radiol 29:267–271PubMed
6.
go back to reference Van der Jagt EJ (2000) Can we see enough? A comparative study of film-screen vs digital radiographs in small lesions in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur Radiol 10:304–307CrossRefPubMed Van der Jagt EJ (2000) Can we see enough? A comparative study of film-screen vs digital radiographs in small lesions in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur Radiol 10:304–307CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Langen HJ et al. (1993) Comparative evaluation of digital radiography vs conventional radiography of fractured skulls. Invest Radiol 8:686–689 Langen HJ et al. (1993) Comparative evaluation of digital radiography vs conventional radiography of fractured skulls. Invest Radiol 8:686–689
8.
go back to reference Swee RG (1997) Screen-film vs computed radiography imaging of the hand: a direct comparison. AJR 168:539–542 Swee RG (1997) Screen-film vs computed radiography imaging of the hand: a direct comparison. AJR 168:539–542
9.
go back to reference Zähringer M, Krug B, Kamn KF, Wassmer G, Hellmich M, Winnekendonk G, Andermahr J, Gossmann A, Lackner KJ (2001) Detection of porcine bone lesions and fissures: comparing digital selenium, digital luminescence, and analog film-screen radiography. AJR 177:1397–1403 Zähringer M, Krug B, Kamn KF, Wassmer G, Hellmich M, Winnekendonk G, Andermahr J, Gossmann A, Lackner KJ (2001) Detection of porcine bone lesions and fissures: comparing digital selenium, digital luminescence, and analog film-screen radiography. AJR 177:1397–1403
10.
go back to reference Hamers S et al. (2001) Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs screen-film radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics. Eur Radiol 11:1753–1759PubMed Hamers S et al. (2001) Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs screen-film radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics. Eur Radiol 11:1753–1759PubMed
11.
go back to reference Strotzer M et al. (2000) Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology vs cesium iodine-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Radiology 215:512–515PubMed Strotzer M et al. (2000) Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology vs cesium iodine-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Radiology 215:512–515PubMed
12.
go back to reference Okamura T et al. (2001) Clinical evaluation of digital radiography based on a large-area cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector compared with screen-film radiography for skeletal system and abdomen. Eur Radiol 12:1741–1747CrossRef Okamura T et al. (2001) Clinical evaluation of digital radiography based on a large-area cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector compared with screen-film radiography for skeletal system and abdomen. Eur Radiol 12:1741–1747CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Piraino DW (1999) Selenium-based digital radiography vs conventional film-screen radiography of the hands and feet: a subjective comparison. AJR 172:177–184 Piraino DW (1999) Selenium-based digital radiography vs conventional film-screen radiography of the hands and feet: a subjective comparison. AJR 172:177–184
14.
go back to reference Testoni M (2000) Evaluation of radiolucency condition in total hip arthroplasty: a statistical comparison of the diagnostic capability of digitised image vs conventional X-ray film. Eur Radiol 10:601–608CrossRefPubMed Testoni M (2000) Evaluation of radiolucency condition in total hip arthroplasty: a statistical comparison of the diagnostic capability of digitised image vs conventional X-ray film. Eur Radiol 10:601–608CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27 Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27
16.
go back to reference Altman D (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London, p 406 Altman D (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London, p 406
17.
go back to reference Chevrot A (1992) Total hip replacement. In: Resnick D, Pettersson H (eds) Skeletal radiography, NICER series on diagnostic imaging. Merit Communications, London, pp 594–614 Chevrot A (1992) Total hip replacement. In: Resnick D, Pettersson H (eds) Skeletal radiography, NICER series on diagnostic imaging. Merit Communications, London, pp 594–614
18.
go back to reference Pfahler M, Schidlo C, Refior HJ (1998) Evaluation of imaging in loosening of hip arthroplasty in 326 consecutive cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 117:205–207CrossRefPubMed Pfahler M, Schidlo C, Refior HJ (1998) Evaluation of imaging in loosening of hip arthroplasty in 326 consecutive cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 117:205–207CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Are digital images good enough? A comparative study of conventional film-screen vs digital radiographs on printed images of total hip replacement
Authors
K. Eklund
K. Jonsson
G. Lindblom
B. Lundin
J. Sanfridsson
M. Sloth
B. Sivberg
Publication date
01-05-2004
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 5/2004
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2126-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2004

European Radiology 5/2004 Go to the issue

Calendar of Events

May 2004