CT-based migration analysis is more precise than radiostereometric analysis for tibial implants: a phantom study on a porcine cadaver.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is the gold standard for migration analysis, but computed tomography analysis methods (CTRSA) have shown comparable results in other joints. We attempted to validate precision for CT compared with RSA for a tibial implant. MATERIAL AND METHODS: RSA and CT were performed on a porcine knee with a tibial implant. Marker-based RSA, model-based RSA (MBRSA), and CT scans from 2 different manufacturers were compared. CT analysis was performed by 2 raters for reliability evaluation. RESULTS: 21 double examinations for precision measurements for RSA and CT-based Micromotion Analysis (CTMA) were analysed. Mean (95% confidence interval) precision data for maximum total point motion (MTPM) using marker-based RSA was 0.45 (0.19-0.70) and 0.58 (0.20-0.96) using MBRSA (F-statistic 0.44 [95% CI 0.18-1.1], p = 0.07). Precision data for total translation (TT) for CTMA was 0.08 (0.03-0.12) for the GE scanner and 0.11 (0.04-0.19) for the Siemens scanner (F-statistic 0.37 [0.15-0.91], p = 0.03). When comparing the aforementioned precision for both RSA methods with both CTMA analyses, CTMA was more precise (p < 0.001). The same pattern was seen for other translations and migrations. Mean effective radiation doses were 0.005 mSv (RSA) (0.0048-0.0050) and 0.08 mSv (CT) (0.078-0.080) (p < 0.001). Intra- and interrater reliability were 0.79 (0.75-0.82) and 0.77 (0.72-0.82), respectively. CONCLUSION: CTMA is more precise than RSA for migration analysis of a tibial implant, has overall good intra- and interrater reliability but higher effective radiation doses in a porcine cadaver.

Dose reduction does not impact the precision of CT-based RSA in tibial implants: a diagnostic accuracy study on precision in a porcine cadaver.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is the gold standard for evaluation of migration of implants. CT-RSA has been shown to have precision at the level of RSA in hip, shoulder, and knee joint replacements. We aimed to assess the impact of dose reduction on precision of CT-RSA on tibial implants, comparing it with previously published data on precision of standard dose CT-RSA on tibial implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a total knee arthroplasty on a porcine knee cadaver, and subsequent CT-RSA with low effective doses (0.02 mSv). We compared the results with previously published CT-RSA data with standard (0.08 mSv) dose. The primary outcome variable was the difference in precision of the maximum total translation (MTT). Secondary variables included ratios of variances and standard deviations, and precision of peripheral point translations, center-of-mass translations, and rotations. A difference of more than 0.1 mm in precision was defined as clinically relevant. Our hypothesis was that precisions of low and standard CT-RSA doses were equal. RESULTS: Low dose (mean 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.08) and standard dose CT-RSA (0.08, CI 0.07-0.09) achieve similar precision, with difference in precision of MTT of 0.01, CI 0.00-0.02 mm. The F-statistic (0.99, CI 0.63-1.55) and sdtest (1.05, CI 0.43-2.58) also supported this. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the precision of low dose CT-RSA for tibial implants on a porcine cadaver is equal to standard dose CT-RSA. However, these findings should be confirmed in clinical trials.