ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022
Accuracy of biplanar linear radiography versus conventional radiographs when used for lower limb and implant measurements.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Influence of axial limb rotation on radiographic lower limb alignment: a systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Mechanical axis image quality of the EOS imaging system compared to digital radiographs.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Redefining physiological whole-body alignment according to pelvic incidence: normative values and prediction models.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Biplanar EOS screening in children with hereditary multiple osteochondromas: a feasible screening method?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Towards a better understanding of knee angular deformities: discrepancies between clinical examination and 2D/3D assessments.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Automated measurement of leg length discrepancy from infancy to adolescence based on cascaded LLDNet and comprehensive assessment.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Distance from the magnification device contributes to differences in lower leg length measured in patients with TSF correction.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Article
- Relationship between degenerative scoliosis and lower extremity mechanical parameters based on EOS imaging system.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe current standard of care for measuring lower extremity length and angular discrepancies is using a full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph. However, there has been increasing interest to use biplanar linear EOS imaging as an alternative. This study aims to compare lower extremity length and implant measurements between biplanar linear and conventional radiographs. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this 5-year retrospective study, all patients who had a standing full-length anteroposterior and biplanar linear radiographs (EOS®) that include the lower extremities done within one year of each other were included. Patients who underwent surgery in between the imaging, underwent surgeries that could result in graduated length or angulated corrections and inadequate exposure of the lower extremity were excluded. Four radiographic segments were measured to assess lower limb alignment and length measurements. Height and width measurements of implants were performed for patients who had implants in both imaging.
resultsWhen comparing imaging and actual implant dimensions, biplanar linear radiographs were accurate in measuring actual implant height (median difference = - 0.14 cm, p = 0.66), and width (median difference = - 0.13 cm, p = 0.71). However, conventional radiographs were inaccurate in measuring actual implant height (median difference = 0.19 cm, p = 0.01) and width (median difference = 0.61 cm, p < 0.01). When comparing conventional and biplanar linear radiographs, there was statistically significant difference in all measurements. This includes anatomical femoral length (median difference = 3.53 cm, p < 0.01), mechanical femoral length (median difference = 3.89 cm, p < 0.01), anatomical tibial length (median difference = 2.34 cm, p < 0.01) and mechanical tibial length (median difference = 2.20 cm, p < 0.01).
conclusionFirst, there is a significant difference in the lower extremity length when comparing conventional and biplanar linear radiographs. Second, biplanar linear radiographs are found to be accurate while conventional radiographs are not as accurate in implant measurements of length and width in the lower extremity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33386975What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.