Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-05-2018 | Original Article

Stereoradiography imaging motion artifact: does it affect radiographic measures after spinal instrumentation?

Authors: Anne-Laure Simon, Emmanuelle Ferrero, A. N. Larson, Kenton R. Kaufman

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 5/2018

Abstract

Purpose

Stereoradiography imaging (SRI) is an accurate and reliable low-dose radiographic method. However, patients must remain motionless during image acquisition. Motion artifacts are frequently noted. The aims of the study were to determine the incidence of the SRI motion artifact and assess if motion during SRI acquisition affects radiographic measurements.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 198 patients with spinal instrumentation had biplanar SRI radiographs performed, of whom 39 had concomitant conventional radiographs. Eight coronal and sagittal spinal parameters were independently measured on SRI and conventional radiographs for the 39 patients by 2 observers. Inclusion criteria were: presence of spinal instrumentation of more than six levels and an SRI motion artifact identified on the coronal and/or the sagittal views on either the spinal rods or on the limbs. Means were compared between both types of radiographs using the Student’s t test; intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used for intraobserver reproducibility and interrater reliability.

Results

A motion artifact was identified in 19.7 % (n = 39, mean age 19.5 ± 1.7 years) of the cases. There were no differences in any of the coronal or sagittal plane measurements between SRI and X-rays. Intraobserver reliability and interrater reproducibility was high (range 0.81–0.98).

Conclusions

Motion artifact during full-spine stereoradiography imaging acquisition is frequent, but does not affect spinal measurements. SRI with a motion artifact can be used to produce reliable measurements of the sagittal and coronal parameters. Some SRI images with a motion artifact may suggest loss of fixation or bending of the rods. However, after becoming familiar with the appearance of the motion artifact, repeat radiographs are rarely indicated.

IRB number

14-004872.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Dubousset J, Charpak G, Dorion I et al (2005) A new 2D and 3D imaging approach to musculoskeletal physiology and pathology with low-dose radiation and the standing position: the EOS system. Bull Académie Natl Méd 189(2):287–297

Deschênes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G et al (2010) Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine 35(9):989–994CrossRefPubMed

Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CWA, Schwab A et al (2013) Comparison of radiation dose, workflow, patient comfort and financial break-even of standard digital radiography and a novel biplanar low-dose X-ray system for upright full-length lower limb and whole spine radiography. Skeletal Radiol 42(7):959–967CrossRefPubMed

Ilharreborde B, Steffen JS, Nectoux E et al (2011) Angle measurement reproducibility using EOS three-dimensional reconstructions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior instrumentation. Spine 36(20):E1306–E1313CrossRefPubMed

Illés T, Somoskeöy S (2012) The EOS™ imaging system and its uses in daily orthopaedic practice. Int Orthop 36(7):1325–1331CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Krug KB, Weber C, Schwabe H et al (2014) Comparison of image quality using a X-ray stereotactical whole-body system and a direct flat-panel X-ray device in examinations of the pelvis and knee. Rofo 186(1):67–76PubMed

Morvan G, Mathieu P, Vuillemin V et al (2011) Standardized way for imaging of the sagittal spinal balance. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):602–608CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Somoskeöy S, Tunyogi-Csapó M et al (2012) Accuracy and reliability of coronal and sagittal spinal curvature data based on patient-specific three-dimensional models created by the EOS 2D/3D imaging system. Spine J 12(11):1052–1059CrossRefPubMed

Wybier M, Bossard P (2013) Musculoskeletal imaging in progress: The EOS imaging system. Joint Bone Spine 80(3):238–243CrossRefPubMed

10.

Blumer SL, Dinan D, Grissom LE (2014) Benefits and unexpected artifacts of biplanar digital slot-scanning imaging in children. Pediatr Radiol 44(7):871–882CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gille O, Champain N, Benchikh-El-Fegoun A et al (2007) Reliability of 3D reconstruction of the spine of mild scoliotic patients. Spine 32(5):568–573CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lafage R, Ferrero E, Henry JK et al (2015) Validation of a new computer-assisted tool to measure spino-pelvic parameters. Spine J 15(12):2493–2502CrossRefPubMed

13.

Legaye J, Saunier P, Dumas R et al (2009) Correction for patient sway in radiographic biplanar imaging for three-dimensional reconstruction of the spine: in vitro study of a new method. Acta Radiol 50(7):781–790CrossRefPubMed

14.

Hong J-Y, Suh S-W, Easwar TR et al (2011) Evaluation of the three-dimensional deformities in scoliosis surgery with computed tomography: efficacy and relationship with clinical outcomes. Spine 36(19):E1259–E1265CrossRefPubMed

15.

Humbert L, De Guise JA, Aubert B et al (2009) 3D reconstruction of the spine from biplanar X-rays using parametric models based on transversal and longitudinal inferences. Med Eng Phys 31(6):681–687CrossRefPubMed

16.

Labelle H, Aubin C-E, Jackson R et al (2011) Seeing the spine in 3D: how will it change what we do? J Pediatr Orthop 31(1 Suppl):S37–S45CrossRefPubMed

17.

Sangole A, Aubin C-E, Labelle H et al (2010) The central hip vertical axis: a reference axis for the Scoliosis Research Society three-dimensional classification of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35(12):E530–E534CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ilharreborde B, Dubousset J, Le Huec J-C (2014) Use of EOS imaging for the assessment of scoliosis deformities: application to postoperative 3D quantitative analysis of the trunk. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 4):S397–S405PubMed

19.

Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC et al (1990) Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis. Evaluation of intrinsic error. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72(3):320–327CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rillardon L, Levassor N, Guigui P et al (2003) Validation of a tool to measure pelvic and spinal parameters of sagittal balance. Rev Chir Orthopédique Réparatrice Appar Mot 89(3):218–227

21.

Shea KG, Stevens PM, Nelson M et al (1998) A comparison of manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement. Intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine 23(5):551–555CrossRefPubMed

22.

Marks MC, Stanford CF, Mahar AT et al (2003) Standing lateral radiographic positioning does not represent customary standing balance. Spine 28(11):1176–1182PubMed

23.

Steffen J-S, Obeid I, Aurouer N et al (2010) 3D postural balance with regard to gravity line: an evaluation in the transversal plane on 93 patients and 23 asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J 19(5):760–767CrossRefPubMed

24.

Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2000) The effect of variation in arm position on sagittal spinal alignment. Spine 25(17):2204–2209CrossRefPubMed

Title: Stereoradiography imaging motion artifact: does it affect radiographic measures after spinal instrumentation?
Authors: Anne-Laure Simon
Emmanuelle Ferrero
A. N. Larson
Kenton R. Kaufman
Publication date: 01-05-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4462-z

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Stereoradiography imaging motion artifact: does it affect radiographic measures after spinal instrumentation?

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

IRB number

Level of evidence

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

IRB number

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

A new parallel closing mechanism for the laminectomy rongeur makes it significantly more precise: a biomechanical and mechanical comparison study

Letter to the Editor concerning “Relationship between preoperative serum rapid turnover proteins and early-stage surgical wound infection after spine surgery” by D. Kudo et al. (Eur Spine J; 2016: DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4855-z)

The prevalence of lumbar spondylolysis in young children: a retrospective analysis using CT

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging in addition to computed tomography scans in the evaluation of cervical spine injuries: a study of obtunded blunt trauma patients

Is it appropriate to measure age-related lumbar disc degeneration on the mid-sagittal MR image? A quantitative image study

A review of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and associated vertebral numeration