A comparative study between parameters measurement method based on convolutional neural network and manual measurement method after total hip arthroplasty
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20240723-00420
- VernacularTitle:基于卷积神经网络的全髋关节置换术后参数测量与人工测量方法的比较研究
- Author:
Xin ZHI
1
;
Xingyu LIU
;
Ping SONG
;
Yiling ZHANG
;
Wei CHAI
Author Information
1. 解放军总医院第四医学中心骨科医学部，北京 100142
- Keywords:
Arthroplasty, replacement, hip;
Artificial intelligence;
Neural networks, computer;
Parameters measurement
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2024;44(20):1358-1363
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the differences between convolutional neural network (CNN) measurements and manual measurements of prosthetic angles and leg length discrepancies after total hip arthroplasty (THA).Methods:Data were collected from 100 patients who underwent unilateral THA at the Department of Orthopaedics, Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, between January and March 2024. Fifty patients received a ceramic-lined hip prosthesis, and 50 received a polyethylene-lined hip prosthesis. The cohort included 58 males and 42 females, with an average age of 51.6±12.71 years. The left hip was affected in 45 cases, and the right hip in 55 cases. The Attention UNet network was used to segment the prostheses and identify key points, from which the acetabular prosthesis abduction angle, anteversion angle, and leg length discrepancy were calculated. The CNN measurements of anteversion angle, abduction angle, and leg length discrepancy were compared with manual measurements. The consistency between the two methods was evaluated using the Bland-Altman method.Results:CNN measurements of the abduction angle, anteversion angle, and leg length discrepancy for the 100 prostheses were 40.55°±4.76°, 21.5°(19.0°, 27.0°), and 3.6(1.7, 6.8) mm, respectively, while manual measurements were 40.58°±4.93°, 21.0° (17.6°, 23.2°), and 3.0 (2.0, 7.0) mm, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in anteversion angle between the two methods ( Z=-2.189, P=0.029), but no significant differences in abduction angle or leg length discrepancy ( P>0.05). For the 50 cases with polyethylene-lined prostheses, CNN-measured abduction and anteversion angles were 40.31°±4.70° and 20.0°(18.0°, 22.0°), respectively, while manual measurements were 40.49°±4.92° and 20.0°(17.0°, 21.5°); there were no statistically significant differences ( P>0.05). For the 50 ceramic-lined prostheses, CNN-measured abduction and anteversion angles were 40.79°±4.86° and 26.5°(20.8°, 33.0°), respectively, while manual measurements were 40.68°±4.98° and 20.0°(18.0°, 22.0°), with a significant difference in anteversion angle ( Z=-3.426, P=0.001) but not in abduction angle ( t=0.994, P=0.325). Bland-Altman analysis showed a difference of 0.031°±1.091° for the abduction angle of the 100 prostheses between the two methods, 0.178°±1.296° for the polyethylene-lined prostheses, and -0.116°±0.825° for the ceramic-lined prostheses. For the anteversion angle, the difference was -3.280°±6.920° for the 100 prostheses, -0.002°±1.471° for the polyethylene-lined prostheses, and -6.560°±8.523° for the ceramic-lined prostheses. The difference in leg length discrepancy was -0.101±0.947 mm. Conclusion:CNN measurements of acetabular prosthesis abduction angle, polyethylene-lined prosthesis anteversion angle, and leg length discrepancy after THA showed no significant differences from manual measurements. However, CNN and manual measurements of ceramic-lined prosthesis anteversion angle differed. Bland-Altman analysis indicates that the two methods have good consistency when measuring the abduction angle, the lower limb discrepancy, and the anteversion angle of the polyethylene liner prosthesis.
