I m p a c t of b o dy p a r t t hi c k n e s s o n AP p elvis r a dio g r a p hi c i m a g e q u ality a n d eff e c tiv e d o s e Alzyo u d, K, H o g g , P a n d E n gl a n d, A h t t p:// dx.

Introduction: To investigate the reliability and variability of Video Rasterstereography (VR) measurements of the spine and pelvis, for eight proposed standing postures, in order to help define an optimal standing position for erect pelvis radiography. Methods: Surface topography data were collected using the formetic 4D dynamic modelling (Diers) system. 61 healthy participants were recruited; each participant performed eight different standing positions. Four positions were performed with the feet shoulder width apart and parallel, and four positions were performed with the feet shoulder width apart and internally rotated. For the upper extremity, each of the (two sets of) four positions were performed with different arm positions (arms by the sides, arms crossed over the chest, arms 30 flexed and touching the medial end of the clavicle, arms 30 flexed with the hands holding a support). Three sets of surface topography were collected in the eight positions (n ¼ 24). The variability was assessed by calculating standard error of the measurement (SEm) and the coefficient of variation (CV). Reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC ± 95% CI). Results: No significant differences in the SEm were found between the three paired measurements for all standing positions (P > 0.05). ICC values demonstrated excellent reliability for all measurements across the eight standing positions (range 0.879e1.00 [95% CI 0.813e1.00]). Conclusion: Evaluating eight standing positions radiographically would be unethical as it would involve repeat radiation exposures. Using the formetic 4D dynamic modelling (Diers) system, provides an alternative and has shown that there was only a minimal, non-statistically significant, differences between the eight different standing positions. Implication for practice: Different standing positions were proposed for erect pelvis radiography.

Objectives: Pelvis radiographs are usually acquired supine despite standing imaging reflecting functional anatomy. We compared the supine and erect radiographic examinations for anatomical features, radiation dose and image quality. Methods: Sixty patients underwent pelvis radiography in both supine and erect positions at the same examination appointment. Measures of body mass index and sagittal diameter were obtained. Images were evaluated using visual grading analysis and pelvic tilt was compared. Dose-area-product (DAP) values were recorded and inputted into the CalDose_X software to estimate effective dose (ED). The CalDose_X software allowed comparisons using data from the erect and supine sex-specific phantoms (MAX06 & FAX06). Results: Patient sagittal diameter was greater on standing with an average 20.6% increase at the iliac crest (median 30.0, interquartile range [26.0 to 34.0] cm), in comparison to the supine position [24.0 (22.3 to 28.0) cm; p < 0.001]. 57 (95%) patients had posterior pelvic tilt on weight-bearing. Erect image quality was significantly decreased with median image quality scores of 78% (69 to 85) compared to 87% for the supine position [81 to 91] (p < 0.001). In the erect position the ED was 47% higher [0.17 (0.13 to 0.33) mSv versus 0.12 (0.08 to 0.18) mSv (p < 0.001)], influenced by the increased sagittal diameter. 42 (70%) patients preferred the standing examination. Conclusion: Patient diameter and pelvic tilt were altered on weightbearing. Erect images demonstrated an overall decrease in image quality with a higher radiation dose. Optimal acquisition parameters are required for erect pelvis radiography as the supine technique is not directly transferable.