{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022302904564315353, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.242718446601942, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Radiographic assessment of cup migration and wear after hip replacement.

Methods are needed for accurate measurement of acetabular cup migration and wear after hip replacement. The EBRA (Ein Bild Röntgen Analyse) method was recently introduced as computerized method for radiographic assessment of acetabular cup migration. In this study, various standard methods for measuring migration were evaluated and compared to radiostereometry (RSA), which has proved to be highly accurate. A subroutine for wear measurement was developed and added to the EBRA method. Of the standard methods, Nunn's method was the best for migration measurement and Livermore's the best for wear measurement. Measurements with EBRA were better than the standard methods. Pelvic tilt seemed to be the main source of error in measurements. The effect of pelvic tilt was evaluated experimentally. EBRA detected and excluded tilted radiographs, the errors of measurement being smaller with EBRA than with standard methods. The precision of the input procedure, repeated radiographic examination, the intra- and interobserver errors were assessed. Apart from the digital input of the data, EBRA was better than the standard methods. Normal values concerning acetabular cup migration and wear should be obtained from long-term surviving hip replacements, without radiographic signs of loosening. No method of measurement detected evidence of changes in the wear-rate and in migration over time. EBRA showed cold-flow in some cups, but did not provide additional information in the long-term. Nunn's method for migration measurements and Livermore's method for wear are recommended in clinical practice. EBRA is more accurate and should be used for studies of new implant designs that have passed the preclinical and, preferably, radiostereometric analysis. RSA is unsurpassed and is recommended for early clinical follow-up in a limited number of patients.