ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Accuracy and precision of in vitro EOS imaging compared to digital radiographs in the measurement of intramedullary lengthening.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAccurate limb length measurement is essential during limb lengthening procedures to prevent neurologic and musculoskeletal complications. Magnetic intramedullary lengthening nails (MILN) rely on radiographs for measurement, but the optimal radiographic technique is not established. This study evaluated the precision and accuracy of EOS imaging versus digital radiography, including calibration techniques and measurement techniques for assessing intramedullary lengthening.
methodsAn MILN was inserted into a Sawbones femur, and lengthening measurements from digital X-ray and EOS imaging were compared to external remote control (ERC) results. Measurements were taken with and without calibration using a magnification ball, nail width, or female nail length. Four observers measured the distraction gap, spindle length, full nail length, and male nail length at various hip flexion angles. Precision and accuracy were calculated for each technique.
resultsFrom 576 measurements, EOS imaging demonstrated significantly higher accuracy than digital radiography (83.6% vs. 73.5% absolute accuracy; p < 0.001) when non-calibrated values were included. EOS maintained superior accuracy at 30 mm, 50 mm, and 70 mm of lengthening (p < 0.05), with no difference at 10 mm. Calibration did not affect EOS accuracy, whereas digital radiography was less accurate without calibration (p < 0.001). Distraction gap measurement was the most accurate for both modalities, and 0° hip flexion provided the highest precision. Overall, EOS was more precise (79.4% vs. 71.7% precision rates; p < 0.001).
conclusionEOS imaging is recommended for limb lengthening measurements due to its superior precision and accuracy. For digital radiographs, careful calibration is essential to achieve accurate measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39893328What 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.