• Optimum positioning for anteroposterior pelvis radiography: A literature review

      Alzyoud, K.; Hogg, P.; Snaith, Beverly; Flintham, K.; England, A. (2018-09)
      Aim: Pelvic radiography is used for the identification of hip joint changes, including pathologies such as osteoarthritis. Several studies have recommended that the position for this radiological procedure should be standing, not supine, to reflect the functional appearances of the hip joint. The aim of this review was to evaluate pelvis radiography positioning with respect to the image appearances and information provided for clinical decision-making. Aside from this, potential recommendations to the radiographic technique for an erect pelvis projection will be considered. Method: A literature search was performed using databases/abstract systems (ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE). Only articles written in English were included. Results: Twenty-five articles were identified. Findings from the review describe the effect of repositioning from supine to erect on a series of specific hip measurements. These include pelvic tilt, joint space width, and the acetabular component. Conclusion: Evidence within the literature illustrates that in several studies, there were differences when repositioning from supine to standing for a number of pelvic metrics. Standing positioning is promoted by some authors since this may facilitate the early diagnosis of hip joint pathology and assist in the planning of surgical interventions. Literature is very limited on how to optimally perform erect pelvis radiography, and this should be an area for future research.
    • Variation in pelvic radiography practice: Why can we not standardise image acquisition techniques?

      Snaith, Beverly; Field, L.; Lewis, E.F.; Flintham, K. (2019-11)
      Introduction: Pelvic radiographs remain an essential investigation in orthopaedic practice. Although it is recognised that acquisition techniques can affect image appearances and measurement accuracy, it remains unclear what variation in practice exists and what impact this could have on decision making. Method: This was a cross sectional survey of UK radiology departments utilising an electronic tool. An introductory letter and link was distributed. Responses were received from 69 unique hospital sites within the specified timeframe, a response rate of 37.9%. Results: There was no consistent technique for the positioning of patients for pelvic radiographs. The distance varied between 90 and 115 cm and 10 different centering points were described. In relation to leg position, the feet are usually internally rotated (65 of 69 [94.2%]). Only 1 teaching hospital (1 of 69 [1.4%]) uses a weight-bearing position as standard. Orthopaedic calibration devices were not in routine use, with only 21 using on pelvic x-rays (30.4%). Further, the type of device and application criteria were inconsistent. Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the first study to directly compare radiographic positioning across hospital sites. Our data demonstrated marked variation in technique for pelvis radiographs with associated implications for clinical decision making. Research is required to determine the standard technique and quality outcome measures to provide confidence in diagnostic interpretation particularly for serial radiographs.