Distances and angles in standing long-leg radiographs: comparing conventional radiography, digital radiography, and EOS.

OBJECTIVE: Distances and angles measured from long-leg radiographs (LLR) are important for surgical decision-making. However, projectional radiography suffers from distortion, potentially generating differences between measurement and true anatomical dimension. These phenomena are not uniform between conventional radiography (CR) digital radiography (DR) and fan-beam technology (EOS). We aimed to identify differences between these modalities in an experimental setup. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hemiskeleton was stabilized using an external fixator in neutral, valgus and varus knee alignment. Ten images were acquired for each alignment and each modality: one CR setup, two different DR systems, and an EOS. A total of 1680 measurements were acquired and analyzed. RESULTS: We observed great differences for dimensions and angles between the 4 modalities. Femoral head diameter measurements varied in the range of > 5 mm depending on the modality, with EOS being the closest to the true anatomical dimension. With functional leg length, a difference of 8.7% was observed between CR and EOS and with the EOS system being precise in the vertical dimension on physical-technical grounds, this demonstrates significant projectional magnification with CR-LLR. The horizontal distance between the medial malleoli varied by 20 mm between CR and DR, equating to 21% of the mean. CONCLUSIONS: Projectional distortion resulting in variations approaching 21% of the mean indicate, that our confidence on measurements from standing LLR may not be justified. It appears likely that among the tested equipment, EOS-generated images are closest to the true anatomical situation most of the time.

How Framing Bias Impacts Preferences for Innovation in Bone Tissue Engineering.

It is currently unknown if surgeons and biomaterial scientists &or tissue engineers (BS&orTE) process and evaluate information in similar or different (un)biased ways. For the gold standard of surgery to move "from bench to bedside," there must naturally be synergies between these key stakeholders' perspectives. Because only a small number of biomaterials and tissue engineering innovations have been translated into the clinic today, we hypothesized that this lack of translation is rooted in the psychology of surgeons and BS&orTE. Presently, both clinicians and researchers doubt the compatibility of surgery and research in their daily routines. This has led to the use of a metaphorical expression "squaring of the circle," which implies an unsolvable challenge. As bone tissue engineering belongs to the top five research areas in tissue engineering, we choose the field of bone defect treatment options for our bias study. Our study uses an online survey instrument for data capture such as incorporating a behavioral economics cognitive framing experiment methodology. Our study sample consisted of surgeons (n = 208) and BS&orTE (n = 59). And we used a convenience sampling method, with participants (conference attendants) being approached both in person and through email between October 22, 2022, and March 13, 2023. We find no distinct positive-negative cognitive framing differences by occupation. That is, any framing bias present in this surgical decision-making setting does not appear to differ significantly between surgeon and BS&orTE specialization. When we explored within-group differences by frames, we see statistically significant (p < 0.05) results for surgeons in the positive frame ranking autologous bone graft transplantation lower than surgeons in the negative frame. Furthermore, surgeons in the positive frame rank Ilizarov bone transport method higher than surgeons in the negative frame (p < 0.05).