Radiation Dose Reduction in Digital Plain Radiography of the Knee after Total Knee Arthroplasty

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: To reduce radiation exposure of frequently performed radiographs of the knee in follow-up of total-knee arthroplasty ensuring accurate assessment by using objective quality control criteria.

Materials and Methods: In this prospective randomized study 278 radiographs of the knee in follow-up of total-knee arthroplasty were performed with standard and 37 % reduced radiation dose. The evaluation of the plain-radiographs was conducted using the following criteria: bone-implant interface, implant-surface character, implant-implant discrimination and periarticular heterotopic ossification. Two radiologists evaluated these criteria using a score ranging from 1 (definitely assessable) to 4 (not assessable). If a single criterion had been evaluated with a score ≥ 3 or more than 2 criteria with ≥ 2 points, the radiograph was score das „not assessable“. The study was designed as non-inferiority-trial.

Results: 100 % of examined radiographs were scored as assessable, hence no statistical inferiority between the examinations with standard and reduced dose could be observed. Singular assessment of the defined criteria was likewise dose-independent.

Conclusion: Plain-radiography of the knee following total-knee arthroplasty can be performed with 63 % of standard dose without loss of diagnostic validity.

Key points:

• Due to the non-inferiority of digital radiographs of the knee joint after total-knee arthroplasty done with 37 % reduced image receiver dose we recommend the tested speed class of SC 800 as a new reference value for digital radiographs with this indication.

Citation Format:

• Kloth JK, Tanner M, Stiller W et al. Radiation Dose Reduction in Digital Plain Radiography of the Knee after Total Knee Arthroplasty. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2015; 187: 685 – 690

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Reduktion der Strahlenexposition bei häufig zu wiederholenden Projektionsradiografien des Kniegelenkes nach endoprothetischer Versorgung unter Einhaltung objektiver indikationsspezifischer Qualitätskriterien.

Material und Methoden: Prospektiv randomisiert wurden insgesamt 278 Projektionsradiografien des Kniegelenkes nach Prothesenimplantation mit Standarddosis und 37 % reduzierter Dosis durchgeführt. Die Beurteilung der Aufnahmen erfolgte anhand folgender Kriterien: Metall-Zement-Knochen-Interface, Oberflächenbeschaffenheit, Diskriminierung der Implantatkomponenten und periartikuläre Ossifikationen. Diese wurden von 2 Radiologen mit einem Score von 1 (vollständig beurteilbar) bis 4 (nicht beurteilbar) bewertet. Die Einschätzung „nicht beurteilbar“ wurde bei Bewertung eines Einzelkriteriums ≥ 3 oder zweier Kriterien ≥ 2 vergeben. Die statistische Auswertung erfolgt als Nichtunterlegenheitsanalyse.

Ergebnisse: 100 % der in die Studie eingeschlossenen Röntgenaufnahmen waren nach o. g. Score beurteilbar, somit konnte die Nichtunterlegenheit der Aufnahmen mit reduzierter Dosis bestätigt werden. Die Bewertung der Einzelkriterien war ebenfalls dosisunabhängig.

Schlussfolgerung: Röntgenuntersuchungen nach Knietotalendoprothese können ohne Verlust der diagnostischen Aussagekraft mit 63 % der Standarddosis durchgeführt werden.

• References

• 1 AMWF. Endoprothese bei Gonarthrose – Leitlinien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. AWMF-Leitlinien-Register 2009 012/008.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Math KR, Zaidi SF, Petchprapa C et al. Imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2006; 10: 47-63
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Sarokhan AJ, Scott RD, Thomas WH et al. Total knee arthroplasty in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983; 65: 1071-1080
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Malviya A, Foster HE, Avery P et al. Long term outcome following knee replacement in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Knee 2010; 17: 340-344
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Veit R, Guggenberger R, Nosske D et al. Diagnostic reference levels for X-ray examinations: update 2010. Radiologe 2010; 50: 907-912
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Bertolini M, Nitrosi A, Rivetti S et al. A comparison of digital radiography systems in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency. Med Phys 2012; 39: 2617-2627
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Samei E, Ranger NT, MacKenzie A et al. Detector or system? Extending the concept of detective quantum efficiency to characterize the performance of digital radiographic imaging systems. Radiology 2008; 249: 926-937
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Kloth JK, Neumann R, von Stillfried E et al. Quality-controlled dose reduction of full-leg radiography in patients with knee malalignment. Skeletal Radiol 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s00256-014-2004-5.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Kloth JK, Wiedenhoefer B, Stiller W et al. Modern digital plain-radiography of the whole spine in scoliosis patients – dose reduction and quality criteria. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 48-54
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Dunnett CW, Gent M. Significance testing to establish equivalence between treatments, with special reference to data in the form of 2X2 tables. Biometrics 1977; 33: 593-602
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Farrington CP, Manning G. Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk. Stat Med 1990; 9: 1447-1454
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Kropil P, Fenk R, Fritz LB et al. Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 51-58
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Koch GG, Landis JR, Freeman JL et al. A general methodology for the analysis of experiments with repeated measurement of categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 133-158
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 European Society of R. White paper on radiation protection by the European Society of Radiology. Insights Imaging 2011; 2: 357-362
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Furia JP, Pellegrini Jr VD. Heterotopic ossification following primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995; 10: 413-419
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CW, Schwab A et al. 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 2013; 42: 959-967
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Escott BG, Ravi B, Weathermon AC et al. EOS Low-Dose Radiography: A Reliable and Accurate Upright Assessment of Lower-Limb Lengths. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: e1831-e1837
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material