Background and objectives: The differences between computed radiography-based teleoroentgenograms (CR-based teleoroentgenograms) and an EOS® imaging system were evaluated by measuring lower extremity lengths and alignments. Materials and methods: The leg length [L], femur length [F], tibia length [T], and hip−knee−ankle (HKA) angle were measured in 101 patients with lower extremity disease by a CR-based teleoroentgenogram with computed radiography and an EOS®. The additive length of the femoral and tibial segments (F + T) was determined by adding the two length values. Then, the differences among all five parameters between the two techniques were analyzed. The magnification (mm) was calculated by subtracting the length measurements on the EOS® from those in the scanogram. Furthermore, the magnification percentage (%) was calculated by dividing the magnification with the measurements on the EOS®. Results: The magnification errors (mean ± standard deviation), when comparing both right and left sides, were 7.80 ± 1.41%, 7.3 ± 6.01%, 5.16 ± 1.25%, and 6.45 ± 0.94% for L, F, T, and F + T, respectively. For limb length, the CR-based teleoroentgenogram had an average magnification of 6.8% (range, 5.2 to 7.8%) compared to the EOS® imaging. The two groups displayed a statistical difference (p < 0.01), except for the HKA angle. Conclusions: The CR-based teleoroentgenogram had a magnification of about 6.8% compared to the EOS® imaging system in evaluating lower extremity length. Therefore, more attention must be given to CR-based teleoroentgenograms to correct angular deformities.
Keywords: EOS® imaging system; angular deformity; computed radiography-based teleoroentgenogram; limb length.