ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Leg length discrepancy (LLD) and lower extremity malalignment can lead to pain and osteoarthritis. A variety of radiographic parameters are used to assess LLD and alignment. A 510(k) FDA approved artificial intelligence (AI) software locates landmarks on full leg standing radiographs and performs several measurements. The objective of this study was to assess the reliability of this AI tool compared to three manual readers. METHODS: A sample of 320 legs was used. Three readers' measurements were compared to AI output for hip-knee-angle (HKA), anatomical-tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), anatomical-mechanical-axis angle (AMA), joint-line-convergence angle (JLCA), mechanical-lateral-proximal-femur-angle (mLPFA), mechanical-lateral-distal-femur-angle (mLDFA), mechanical-medial-proximal-tibia-angle (mMPTA), mechanical-lateral-distal-tibia- angle (mLDTA), femur length, tibia length, full leg length, leg-length-discrepancy (LLD), and mechanical-axis-deviation (MAD). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to track performance. RESULTS: AI output was successfully produced for 272/320 legs in the study. The reader versus AI pairwise ICCs were mostly in the excellent range: 12/13, 12/13, and 9/13 variables were in the excellent range (ICC > 0.75) for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was better agreement for leg length, femur length, tibia length, LLD, and HKA than for other variables. The median reading times for the three readers and AI were 250, 282, 236, and 38 s, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that AI-based software provides reliable assessment of LLD and lower extremity alignment with substantial time savings.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Angular and longitudinal deformities of leg alignment create excessive stresses across joints, leading to pain and impaired function. Multiple measurements are used to assess these deformities on anteroposterior (AP) full-length radiographs. An artificial intelligence (AI) software automatically locates anatomical landmarks on AP full-length radiographs and performs 13 measurements to assess knee angular alignment and leg length. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the agreements in LLD and knee alignment measurements between an AI software and two board-certified radiologists in patients without metal implants. The secondary aim was to assess time savings achieved by AI. METHODS: The measurements assessed in the study were hip-knee-angle (HKA), anatomical-tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), anatomical-mechanical-axis angle (AMA), joint-line-convergence angle (JLCA), mechanical-lateral-proximal-femur-angle (mLPFA), mechanical-lateral-distal-femur-angle (mLDFA), mechanical-medial-proximal-tibia-angle (mMPTA), mechanical-lateral-distal-tibia- angle (mLDTA), femur length, tibia length, full leg length, leg length discrepancy (LLD), and mechanical axis deviation (MAD). These measurements were performed by two radiologists and the AI software on 164 legs. Intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess the AI's performance. RESULTS: The AI software set incorrect landmarks for 11/164 legs. Excluding these cases, ICCs between the software and radiologists were excellent for 12/13 variables (11/13 with outliers included), and the AI software met performance targets for 11/13 variables (9/13 with outliers included). The mean reading time for the AI algorithm and two readers, respectively, was 38.3, 435.0, and 625.0 s. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that, with few exceptions, this AI-based software reliably generated measurements for most variables in the study and provided substantial time savings.
