Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735316
Evaluation and Comparison of Self-Made and Commercial Calibration Markers for Radiographic Magnification Correction in Veterinary Digital Radiography
Funding Calibration markers used in this study were funded by the VETResearch program of the veterinary faculty of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.
Abstract
Objective Magnification error is always present in radiography and calibration is necessary, if high accuracy is required in pre-surgical planning. The goal of this study was to verify the use of self-made markers and calibration techniques and to establish guidelines for magnification correction.
Study Design We evaluated and compared spherical and linear markers of different sizes with focus on practicability, accuracy and precision. Markers were placed on foam pads or attached to flexible arms.
Results Vertical marker deviation of 1 cm from the anatomical reference point corresponded to ∼1% of magnification error in our setting. Marker placement along the horizontal plane showed no significant magnification in the periphery of the radiograph. All markers showed good accuracy and the commercial spherical marker with a flexible segment arm had the best results regarding practicability.
Conclusion Our study suggests that marker type is not solely responsible for usability and accuracy but also the type of fixation. In the absence of a calibration marker, calculation of the magnification factor using a measurement tape during radiography is equally reliable. Use of a fixed averaged calculated calibration factor showed poor agreement compared with the marker calibration, probably due to variability in size of the animals. In conclusion, if precision matters, use of a calibration marker, which could be purchased or self-made, is advised.
Authors' Contributions
J.K. and A.B. conceptualized and designed the manuscript. J.K., A.dM. and A.B. acquired the data. J.K. and A.dM. analyzed and interpreted the data. J.K. also drafted the article. A.dM., A.M.-L. and A.B. were involved in revising article for intellectual content. J.K., A.dM., A.B. and A.M-L. gave final approval for the complete article.
Publication History
Received: 07 December 2020
Accepted: 21 July 2021
Article published online:
21 September 2021
© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Bushberg J, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 3rd Edition.. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012
- 2 The B, Verdonschot N, van Horn JR, van Ooijen PM, Diercks RL. Digital versus analogue preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasties: a randomized clinical trial of 210 total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (06) 866-870
- 3 Brew CJ, Simpson PM, Whitehouse SL, Donnelly W, Crawford RW, Hubble MJW. Scaling digital radiographs for templating in total hip arthroplasty using conventional acetate templates independent of calibration markers. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (04) 643-647
- 4 Franken M, Grimm B, Heyligers I. A comparison of four systems for calibration when templating for total hip replacement with digital radiography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (01) 136-141
- 5 Hornová J, Růžička P, Hrubina M. et al. Magnification of digital hip radiographs differs between clinical workplaces. PLoS One 2017; 12 (11) e0188743
- 6 Drynan D, McArthur M, Vohora A, Hinton D, Menegon G, Wilkinson MPR. Accuracy of digital radiography: regional scaling factors for trauma. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88 (04) 341-345
- 7 Read RL, Duncan CG, Wallace AD, Perry JA, Duerr FM. Assessment of on-screen measurements, magnification, and calibration in digital radiography. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 241 (06) 782-787
- 8 Markovic LE, Scansen BA. Effect of calibration methods on the accuracy of angiographic measurements during transcatheter procedures in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2018; 32 (03) 956-961
- 9 Sinclair VF, Wilson J, Jain NPM, Knowles D. Assessment of accuracy of marker ball placement in pre-operative templating for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (08) 1658-1660
- 10 Sershon RA, Diaz A, Bohl DD, Levine BR. Effect of body mass index on digital templating for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (03) 1024-1026
- 11 Boese CK, Lechler P, Rose L. et al. Calibration markers for digital templating in total hip arthroplasty. PLoS One 2015; 10 (07) e0128529
- 12 King RJ, Makrides P, Gill JA, Karthikeyan S, Krikler SJ, Griffin DR. A novel method of accurately calculating the radiological magnification of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (09) 1217-1222
- 13 Boese CK, Wilhelm S, Haneder S, Lechler P, Eysel P, Bredow J. Dual-position calibration markers for total hip arthroplasty: theoretical comparison to fixed calibration and single marker method. Int Orthop 2019; 43 (03) 589-595
- 14 Heinert G, Hendricks J, Loeffler MD. Digital templating in hip replacement with and without radiological markers. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (04) 459-462
- 15 Kulkarni A, Partington P, Kelly D, Muller S. Disc calibration for digital templating in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (12) 1623-1626
- 16 Bayne CO, Krosin M, Barber TC. Evaluation of the accuracy and use of x-ray markers in digital templating for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (03) 407-413
- 17 The B, Kootstra JW, Hosman AH, Verdonschot N, Gerritsma CL, Diercks RL. Comparison of techniques for correction of magnification of pelvic X-rays for hip surgery planning. J Digit Imaging 2007; 20 (04) 329-335
- 18 Boese CK, Bredow J, Dargel J, Eysel P, Geiges H, Lechler P. Calibration marker position in digital templating of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (04) 883-887