Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep 8;60(3):s00451810034.
doi: 10.1055/s-0045-1810034. eCollection 2025 Jun.

The Influence of Computed Tomography on the Preoperative Planning of Revision Hip Arthroplasty - Femoral Component

Rafaela Reis Torrealba  1 , Maria Isabella Cruz de Castro  1 , Phercyles Veiga-Santos  1 , Marcelo Felipe Almeida  1 , Conrado Torres Laett  1 , Lourenço Peixoto  1
Affiliations

The Influence of Computed Tomography on the Preoperative Planning of Revision Hip Arthroplasty - Femoral Component

Rafaela Reis Torrealba et al. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). .

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

Objective: The present study aimed to compare the accuracy of the Paprosky Classification of Femoral Bone Loss using plain radiographs and two-dimensional computed tomography (2D CT) images with the femoral defect observed intraoperatively by the surgeon.

Methods: There were 14 hip surgeons from the same hospital who classified 80 patients with an indication for revision hip arthroplasty according to Paprosky based on plain radiographs in anteroposterior views of the pelvis and 2D CT images, reconstructed in the axial, coronal, and sagittal planes. We compared this data with the intraoperative findings of femoral bone loss by the same surgeons.

Results: The agreement between the radiographic and CT assessment was excellent for femoral bone defects (94% agreement; κ = 0.95; 0.90-0.99). Individually, the radiograph-based classification agreed with the intraoperative classification in 85% of cases (κ = 0.8; 0.70-0.90). The CT-based one had 86% of agreement (κ = 0.84; 0.75-0.93). There was no statistical difference between the methods.

Conclusion: The use of 2D CT did not show any benefits in recognizing femoral bone loss by the Paprosky classification compared with radiography. Therefore, the significance of 2D images in planning femoral component revision surgery should be questioned, as it is associated with higher financial costs and greater patient exposure to high radiation levels.

Objetivo: Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar a acurácia da Classificação de Paprosky de Perda Óssea Femoral utilizando radiografias simples e imagens de tomografia computadorizada bidimensional (TC-2D), com o defeito femoral observado no intraoperatório pelo cirurgião.

Métodos: Um total de 80 pacientes com indicação para a revisão de artroplastia do quadril foram classificados de acordo com Paprosky, por 14 cirurgiões do quadril do mesmo hospital, com base em radiografias simples em anteroposterior da pelve e posteriormente baseadas emTC-2D, reconstruídas nos planos axial, coronal e sagital. Esses dados foram comparados com os achados de perda óssea femoral no intraoperatório pelos mesmos cirurgiões.

Resultados: A concordância entre a avaliação feita por radiografia e TC é excelente para o defeito ósseo femoral (94% de concordância; κ = 0,95; 0,90–0,99). Individualmente, a classificação feita de acordo com a radiografia concorda com a classificação intraoperatória em 85% dos casos (κ = 0,8; 0,70–0,90). Enquanto a feita com base na TC tem 86% de concordância (κ = 0,84; 0,75–0,93). Não houve diferença estatística entre os métodos.

Conclusão: O uso da TC-2D não mostrou benefícios no reconhecimento da perda óssea femoral pela classificação de Paprosky em comparação com a radiografia. Portanto, deve-se questionar a importância das imagens 2D no planejamento da cirurgia de revisão do componente femoral, visto que se associa com maior custo financeiro e à maior exposição do paciente a níveis elevados de radiação.

Keywords: arthroplasty, replacement, hip; revision surgery; surgery, orthopedic; tomography, x-ray computed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interests The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Kappa coefficient values (95%CI) for agreement assessment in the Paproski classification of hip bone defects. Abbreviation: CT, computed tomography.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bäcker H C, Wu C H, Kienzle A, Perka C, Gwinner C. Mechanical failure of total hip arthroplasties and associated risk factors. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(02):1061–1069. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04353-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guild G N, 3rd, Runner R P, Rickels T D, Oldja R, Faizan A. Anthropometric Computed Tomography Reconstruction Identifies Risk Factors for Cortical Perforation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(11):2554–2558. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.04.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown J M, Mistry J B, Cherian J J et al. Femoral Component Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2016;39(06):e1129–e1139. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20160819-06. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sheth N P, Nelson C L, Paprosky W G. Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(10):601–612. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-10-601. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sheth N P, Melnic C M, Rozell J C, Paprosky W G. Management of severe femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2015;46(03):329–342, ix. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04353-0. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources