How Do Classic (Static) RSA and Patient Motion Artifacts Affect the Assessment of Migration of a TKA Tibial Component? An In Vitro Study
Authors: Cao Han , Sesselmann Stefan , Xu Jing , Seehaus Frank , Forst Raimund 
Published: November 2022

Abstract

Background
Classic (static) Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) is the current gold standard to assess, in vivo, the migration of total joint arthroplasty components. To prevent potential patient motion artifacts during the acquisition of paired radiostereometric images, images must be taken by simultaneously firing both X-ray tubes. However, the influence of nonsynchronized RSA paired images or patient motion artifacts on the precision of RSA and the assessment of implant migration is not well understood.

Questions/purposes
We assessed (1) the effect of possible patient motion on the precision of RSA and (2) apparent differences in implant migration among axes (in-plane and out-of-plane translations and in-plane and out-of-plane rotations) of possible motion artifacts.

Methods
Radiographs of two tibial knee arthroplasty components, each fixed in two bone-implant models as a customized phantom, were taken in a uniplanar measurement setup. We evaluated both model-based (implant models from reversed engineering) and marker-based (additional attached implant markers) RSA approaches. Between the simulated reference and follow-up examinations, we used one of the bone-implant models to simulate patient motion and the other to simulate no patient motion in parallel. Two defined protocols were followed for each of the bone-implant models: no-motion and simulated motion protocols. RSA image pairs were analyzed using a model-based RSA software package (MBRSA 4.1, RSAcore). Precision was calculated through repeat examinations, and migration of the two components was assessed for comparison of the components with each other. Measurements were taken along the medial-lateral and posterior-anterior axes for translations and around the cranial-caudal axis for rotations. The maximum total point motion was measured for comparison between the two components.

Results
The effect of simulated patient motion was generally small, except in the cranial-caudal axis, but the induced imprecision associated with motion was larger in model-based RSA than it was in marker-based RSA. The mean ± standard deviation values of precision in model-based RSA were 0.035 ± 0.015 mm, 0.045 ± 0.014 mm, and 0.049 ± 0.036 mm greater than those in marker-based RSA, in accordance with the simulated motion protocol in translations along the medial-lateral axis (0.018 ± 0.004 mm; p = 0.01), along the posterior-anterior axis (0.018 ± 0.007 mm; p = 0.003), and rotations around the cranial-caudal axis (0.017 ± 0.006 mm; p = 0.02). Apparent differences in implant migration were the greatest for the maximum total point motion. The maximum total point motion increased from 0.038 ± 0.007 mm for the no-motion protocol to 1.684 ± 0.038 mm (p < 0.001) for the simulated motion protocol in marker-based RSA, and from 0.101 ± 0.027 mm for the no-motion protocol to 1.973 ± 0.442 mm (p < 0.001) for the simulated motion protocol in model-based RSA, and was the worst-case scenario regarding patient motion artifacts.

Conclusion
Patient motion exceeding 1 mm or 1° on nonsynchronized RSA images affects measurement errors regarding the detection of migration of a tibial component. In clinical RSA studies, the effect of patient motion on the assessment of implant migration should be of particular concern, even if clinical RSA systems have acceptable precision. Specially trained radiographers are crucial for correctly acquiring radiographs, especially when simultaneous radiography exposures are not electronically automated. In general, RSA requires synchronized image acquisition, and this should be the state-of-the-art.

Clinical Relevance
In clinical RSA studies, precision assessed by repeat examinations may not be reliable using the current standards that are widely used in radiology departments. When assessing implant migration for reliability, comparison of the maximum total point motion between the tested (simulated motion) implant and baseline (no-motion) implant, as in this study, is advocated because of the accurate detection of patient motion artifacts.