ArticlePloS one2024
Reliably calibrating X-ray images required for preoperative planning of THA using a device-adapted magnification factor.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Novel approach to determine components size in a total ankle replacement.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimCalibrated pelvic X-ray images are needed in the preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty (THA) to predict component sizes. Errors and mismatch in the size of one or more components are reported, which can lead to clinically relevant complications. Our aim is to investigate whether we can solve the fundamental problem of X-ray calibration and whether traditional X-ray still has a place in preoperative planning despite improved radiological alternatives.
methodsBased on geometric and radiographic principles, we estimate that the magnification factor is adapted to the X-ray device and depends strongly on the source-image distance of the device. We analyse the errors of the various calibration methods and investigate which narrow range can be expected to show that the center of rotation is sufficiently accurate. Based on the results of several CT-scans we defined an adapted magnification factor and validated the degree of measurement accuracy.
resultsThe true magnification of objects on X-ray images depends mainly on the device settings. Stem size prediction is possible to a limited extent, with an error margin of 4.3%. Components can be predicted with a safety margin of one size up and down as with CT or 3D images. The prerequisite is that the source-image distance is greater than or equal to 120 cm, the table-image distance is known, and the object-image distance is estimated according to the patient's BMI. We defined a device-adapted magnification factor that simplifies the templating routine and can be used to obtain the most reliable preoperative dimensional measurements that can be expected from X-ray images. We found the error margin of the magnification factor with the highest degrees of prediction and precision.
conclusionPreoperative planning is reliable and reproducible using X-ray images if calibration is performed with the device-adapted magnification factor suggested in this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.