Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) presents significant challenges, particularly in patients with severe acetabular bone defects. Traditional treatment options often fall short, leading to the emergence of custom-made 3D-printed acetabular implants. Accurate assessment of implant positioning is crucial for ensuring optimal postoperative outcomes and for providing feedback to the surgical team. This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluates the accuracy of standard 2D radiographs versus 3D CT scans in assessing the positioning of these implants, aiming to determine if 2D imaging could serve as a viable alternative for the postoperative evaluation. We analyzed the implant positions of seven rTHA patients with severe acetabular defects (Paprosky ≥ Type IIIA) using an alignment technique that integrates postoperative 2D radiographs with preoperative CT plans. Two independent investigators, one inexperienced and one experienced, measured the positioning accuracy with both imaging modalities. Measurements included translational shifts from the preoperatively templated implant position in the craniocaudal (CC), lateromedial (LM), and ventrodorsal (VD) directions, as well as rotational differences in anteversion (AV) and inclination (INCL). The study demonstrated that 2D radiographs, when aligned with preoperative CT data, could accurately assess implant positions with precision nearly comparable to that of 3D CT scans. Observed deviations were 1.4 mm and 2.7 mm in CC and LM directions, respectively, and 3.6° in AV and 0.7° in INCL using 2D imaging, all within clinically acceptable ranges. For 3D CT assessments, mean interobserver variability was up to 0.9 mm for translational shifts and 1.4° for rotation, while for 2D alignment, observer differences were 1.4 mm and 3.2° for translation and rotation, respectively. Comparative analysis of mean results from both investigators, across all dimensions (CC, LM, AV, and INCL) for 2D and 3D matching, showed no significant differences. In conclusion, conventional anteroposterior 2D radiographs of the pelvis can sufficiently determine the positioning of custom-made acetabular implants in rTHA. This suggests that 2D radiography is a viable alternative to 3D CT scans, potentially enhancing the implementation and quality control of advanced implant technologies.

Upright patient positioning for pelvic radiotherapy treatments.

AimUltrasound-based repositioning and real-time-monitoring aim at the improvement of the precision of SBRT in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH). Accuracy of ultrasound-based daily repositioning was estimated by comparison with DIBH-cone-beam-CT. Intrafraction motion during beam-delivery was assessed by ultrasound-real-time-monitoring. Patients/methodsResidual error after ultrasound-based interfractional repositioning (85 fractions, 16 SBRT-series; 14 patients) was assessed by marker-based (7 series) or liver-contour-based (9 series) matching in DIBH-CBCT. During beam-delivery, the percentage of 3D misalignment vector below 2 mm, between 2 and 5 mm, 5–7 mm and over 7 mm was estimated. Percentage of relevant target-displacements was analyzed as a function of DIBH-duration. ResultsResidual error after ultrasound-based positioning was 0.4 ± 3.3 mm in LR (left-right), 0.2 ± 4.3 mm in CC (cranio-caudal) and 1.0 ± 3.0 mm in AP (anterior-posterior) directions (vector magnitude 5.4 ± 3.3 mm, MV ± SD). Over 544 DIBHs, target displacement was 1.3 ± 0.5 mm, 0.7 ± 0.3 mm, 1.6 ± 0.6 mm for CC, LR and AP directions, respectively (3D-vector 2.5 ± 0.7 mm). 3D misalignment vector length was below 2 mm in 49.8%, between 2 and 7 mm in 46.3%, and over 7 mm in 3.9% of the beam-delivery-time. During the first 5 s of the DIBH, 3D-misalignment vector length was always below 10 mm. Percentage of target displacements over 10 mm was 0.2%, 0.5% and 0.8% for 10 s, 15 s and 20 s DIBH-duration. ConclusionsUltrasound-based interfractional repositioning is an accurate method for daily localization of abdominal DIBH-SBRT targets. Residual motion is <7 mm in 96% of the beam-delivery-time. Deviations >10 mm occur rarely and can be avoided by gating the beam at a predefined threshold. Ideal DIBH-duration should not exceed 15 s.

Predicting tumour motion during the whole radiotherapy treatment: a systematic approach for thoracic and abdominal lesions based on real time MR

Inter- and Intrafraction Target Motion in Highly Focused Single Vocal Cord Irradiation of T1a Larynx Cancer Patients

Objective To study the spatial distribution of set-up errors for cervical cancer with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to provide referential safety margin out of clinical tumor volume (CTV) during treatment plan design. Methods Six patients with cervical cancer were treated with IMRT in prone position, belly board and thermoplastic cast was used for immobilization. Measurement were made on a daily basis setup under five consecutive treatments with electron portal images device (EPID).Portal films from two projection (one anter-posterior and one opposite lateral)were taken. Sixty portal films were analyzed. The translational and rotational deviations were analyzed by registering and comparing the bony structures of EPID and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR). Results The translational deviations were (3.1 ±1.8) mm, (3.9 ±3.3) mm, (4.2 ±2.6) mm in medi-lateral, cranio-caudal and anterior-posterior directions, the rotational deviations were in coronal plane (0.8±0.9)° and sagittal plane (1.2±1)°. Conclusion For the patients with cervical cancer undergoing IMRT, the margins between the CTV and PTV should be 7.1 mm in lateral direction, 10.4 mm in cranio-caudal and 10.8 mm in anterior-posterior directions. The sign on patients body can help to reduce the setup errors. Key words: Uterine cervical neoplasms; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy planning, computer-assisted; Set-up error