Radiographic evaluation of early periprosthetic acetabular bone contrast and prosthetic head acetabular coverage after uncemented and cemented total hip prosthesis in dogs

Abstract

BackgroundCoxofemoral osteoarthritis is a chronic, disabling condition affecting people and dogs, with THA providing an excellent return to function in severely affected joints. The principal role of THA is to restore an adequate range of motion to the hip joint while transferring load from the acetabulum in order to improve the survival of the implant and enhance the limb function in the short and long terms. The objectives of the study reported here were, therefore, to radiographically evaluate periprosthetic acetabular bone GV and to assess prosthetic head acetabular coverage after 4 months of uncemented and cemented THA in dogs. Means periprosthetic acetabular GV for each and combined 3 regions of interest (zones 1, 2 and 3) were calculated immediately and 4 months after THA. Prosthetic head Norberg (PHN) angle was also measured to assess the degree of prosthetic head acetabular coverage after 4 months of surgery.ResultsZones 2 and 3 showed a significant increase in the mean bone GV after 4 months of uncemented THA. No differences in zones 1–3 after 4 months of cemented THA. Combined zones showed a significant increase in overall mean bone GV 4 months after uncemented THA; whereas, no changes were identified after 4 months of cemented THA. The PHN angles did not change after 4 months of uncemented and cemented THA and did not differ significantly between the 2 designs of hip arthroplasty.ConclusionsRegional periprosthetic acetabular bone GV varies with the design of THA. None of the designs showed periprosthetic acetabular bone lucency. No differences identified in the degree of prosthetic head acetabular coverage in both designs, indicating proper implant stability after 4 months of surgery. Further longer–term investigation on larger population is however still warranted.

Quantitative Radiographic Evaluation of Elbow Incongruity in Labrador and Golden Retrievers with Confirmed Medial Coronoid Disease

“…All measurements were performed by use of a free medical and radiological processing software (ImageJ 1.41/Java 1.6.0_21) previously utilized in veterinary orthopaedic research. 31,32 A magnifica-tion of 300 was used to measure the HRD and HUD, as well as the radius of the humeral condyle, whereas a higher magnification of 800 was used to measure the traditional RU-step.…”

The prevalence of medial coronoid process disease is high in lame large breed dogs and quantitative radiographic assessments contribute to the diagnosis

“…All digitized radiographs were retrieved using PACS (DicomPACS, Version 5.2.4, Oehm und Rehbein GmbH, Rostock, Germany) and analyzed by the same investigator (A.M.) using medical and radiologic image processing software (ImageJ 1.41/Java 1.6.0_21) previously utilized in veterinary orthopedic research . Image analysis was performed by the plugins of the software ( File/Open “to select digital image”/ Magnifying glass “for image magnification of ×100''/ Analyze/Set Scale/Set Measurements “to select Area and Mean ”/ Oval selections “to create a region of interest (zone)” / Plugins/Analyze / Measure and Set Label ).…”

“…The selected digital radiograph of each normal and diseased elbow was analyzed by use of medical and radiologic image processing software (ImageJ 1.41/Java 1.6.0_21) as previously published …”

Quantitative assessment of hip morphology to enhance the identification of hip dysplasia in German Shepherd Dogs

“…Measurements were made using medical and radiologic image processing software (ImageJ 1.41/Java 1.6.0_21) at 200% magnification. 12,13,26 The following radiographic parameters were used to evaluate the coxofemoral joints: (1) CE and NA, measuring the extent of lateral AFH coverage; (2) indexes of dorsal AFH coverage width and area, measuring dorsal AFH coverage; (3) acetabular index/slope angle, quantifying the cranial acetabular edge steepness; and (4) IA, evaluating the proximodistal alignment of the femoral head and neck relative to the corresponding femoral axis.…”

“…The NA and IA (method B) were measured as previously published. 12,13,[27][28][29] The CE and acetabular index angles were measured using procedures modified from previously established human techniq ues. 6,7,14,15,30 The CE angle was measured between 2 straight lines originating from the center of the femoral head; the first line was tangential to the dorsal acetabular rim and the second line was parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body of the corresponding ilium (iliac axis, a line bisecting the shaft of the ilium 13 ; Figure 1).…”