Evaluation of Tilt-correction of Anteversion on Anteroposterior Pelvic Radiographs in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite inaccuracies due to artifact and variations in patient positioning, anteroposterior (AP) radiographs remain the clinical standard for post-operative evaluation of component placement following total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, cup position, specifically anteversion, can be significantly affected by variations in patient positioning on an X-ray. A major cause of such artifact is unaccounted for pelvic tilt. Several methods for correcting the effects of pelvic tilt on radiographic anteversion have been proposed, with varying degrees of accuracy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of a commonly referenced method for correcting acetabular cup anteversion in a cohort undergoing total hip arthroplasty and determine its appropriateness for use in this population of patients. Radiographs from patients who underwent primary or revision hip arthroplasty between February 2016 and February 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Corrected anteversion was calculated by measuring the vertical distance between the symphysis pubis and the sacrococcygeal joint, per the method outlined by Tannast et al. This symphococcygeal distance was then applied to Tannast's nomograms to calculate the magnitude of pelvic tilt. Corrected and uncorrected anteversion values were compared to anteversion values collected intraoperatively using an imageless computer-assisted navigation device. A total of 71 cases were initially eligible for inclusion in the study. The correction method could not be applied in 44% (31/71) of the cases, chiefly due to difficulties in visualizing the required landmarks. In cases where it could be applied, corrected values correlated very poorly with navigation measurements (r = -0.07). Mean corrected anteversion (36.9°, SD: 7.4°) differed from uncorrected anteversion (25.2°, SD: 7.6°) by an average of 13.5° (p<0.001). Mean navigated anteversion (27.4°, SD: 5.7°) differed from corrected values by an average of 10.8° (p=0.16). The evaluated correction method could not be consistently applied to radiographs and did not reliably correct anteversion due to pelvic tilt in this population of patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. This correction method does not appear to be appropriate for use in this patient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".