The Journal of arthroplasty · 2023
Evaluating Pelvic Tilt Using the Pelvic Antero-Posterior Projection Images: A Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chai Yuan, Boudali A Mounir, Khadra Sam, Dasgupta Amrita, Maes Vincent, Walter William L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pelvic tilt (PT) is a routinely evaluated parameter in hip and spine surgeries, and is usually measured on a sagittal pelvic radiograph. This may not always be feasible due to limitations such as landmark visibility, pelvic anomaly, and hardware presence. Tremendous efforts have been dedicated to using pelvic antero-posterior (AP) radiographs for assessing sagittal PT. Thus, this systematic review aimed to collect these methods and evaluate their performances.
METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases in June 2023 with backward reference trailing (Google Scholar archive). There were 30 studies recruited. Risk of bias was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. The relevant data were tabulated in a standardized form for evaluating either the absolute PT or relative PT. Disagreement was resolved by discussing with the senior author.
RESULTS: There were 19 parameters from pelvic AP projection images involved, with 4 studies which used artificial intelligence, eyeball, or statistical shape method not involving a specific parameter. In comparing the PT values from pelvic sagittal images with those extrapolated from antero-posterior projection images, the highest correlation coefficient was found to be 0.91. The mean absolute difference (error) was 2.6°, with a maximum error reaching 10.9°. Most studies supported the feasibility of using AP parameters to calculate changes in PT.
CONCLUSIONS: No individual AP parameter was found to precisely estimate absolute PT. However, relative PT can be derived by evaluating serial AP radiographs of a patient in varying postures, employing any AP parameters.
METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases in June 2023 with backward reference trailing (Google Scholar archive). There were 30 studies recruited. Risk of bias was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. The relevant data were tabulated in a standardized form for evaluating either the absolute PT or relative PT. Disagreement was resolved by discussing with the senior author.
RESULTS: There were 19 parameters from pelvic AP projection images involved, with 4 studies which used artificial intelligence, eyeball, or statistical shape method not involving a specific parameter. In comparing the PT values from pelvic sagittal images with those extrapolated from antero-posterior projection images, the highest correlation coefficient was found to be 0.91. The mean absolute difference (error) was 2.6°, with a maximum error reaching 10.9°. Most studies supported the feasibility of using AP parameters to calculate changes in PT.
CONCLUSIONS: No individual AP parameter was found to precisely estimate absolute PT. However, relative PT can be derived by evaluating serial AP radiographs of a patient in varying postures, employing any AP parameters.