Background: Lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is a common procedure to fuse the anterior spine. However, a lack of consensus on image-based fusion assessment limits the validity and comparison of IF studies. This systematic review aims to (1) report on IF assessment strategies and definitions and (2) summarize available literature on the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of these assessments. Methods: Two searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Search 1 identified studies on adult lumbar IF that provided a detailed description of image-based fusion assessment. Search 2 analyzed studies on the reliability of specific fusion criteria/classifications and the accuracy assessed with surgical exploration. Results: A total of 442 studies were included for search 1 and 8 studies for search 2. Fusion assessment throughout the literature was highly variable. Eighteen definitions and more than 250 unique fusion assessment methods were identified. The criteria that showed most consistent use were continuity of bony bridging, radiolucency around the cage, and angular motion <5°. However, reliability and accuracy studies were scarce. Conclusion: This review highlights the challenges in reaching consensus on IF assessment. The variability in IF assessment is very high, which limits the translatability of studies. Accuracy studies are needed to guide innovations of assessment. Future IF assessment strategies should focus on the standardization of computed tomography-based continuity of bony bridging. Knowledge from preclinical and imaging studies can add valuable information to this ongoing discussion.

Introduction: Dislocation is one of the main reasons for revision of total hip arthroplasty but dislocation rates have not changed in the past decades, compromising patients’ well-being. Acetabular cup orientation plays a key role in implant stability and has been widely studied. This article investigates whether there is a consensus on optimal cup orientation, which is necessary when using a navigation system. Methods: A systematic search of the literature in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed (March 2017) to identify articles that investigated the direct relationship between cup orientation and dislocation, including a thorough evaluation of postoperative cup orientation assessment methods. Results: Twenty eight relevant articles evaluating a direct relation between dislocation and cup orientation could not come to a consensus. The key reason is a lack of uniformity in the assessment of cup orientation. Cup orientation is assessed with different imaging modalities, different methodologies, different definitions for inclination and anteversion, several reference planes and distinct patient positions. Conclusions: All available studies lack uniformity in cup orientation assessment; therefore it is impossible to reach consensus on optimal cup orientation. Using navigation systems for placement of the cup is inevitably flawed when using different definitions in the preoperative planning, peroperative placement and postoperative evaluation. Further methodological development is required to assess cup orientation. Consequently, the postoperative assessment should be uniform, thus differentiating between anterior and posterior dislocation, use the same definitions for inclination and anteversion with the same reference plane and with the patient in the same position.

Objective: To determine the comparability among 10 radiographic anteversion methods for acetabular cup orientation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) found in the literature and the “gold” standard of assessing the anteversion with CT. Methods: This is a retrospective study that blindly compares 10 different conventional radiographic anteversion measurements with the “gold” standard, the measurement of anteversion on the transverse plane of the 3-D images made with CT. The patient archiving and communications system (PACS) was systematically searched for subjects that had undergone a CT angiogram of the abdomen and lower extremities, including the pelvis, had at least one THA in situ and had undergone anterior-posterior (AP) and cross-lateral pelvic radiography between January 2013 and August 2016 in the Diakonessenhuis Hospital Utrecht/Zeist, a non-academic institution. CT scans of patients (n = 16) were systematically collected. Three observers independently measured cup anteversion from radiographs, using a total of 10 different methods, and measured the “gold” standard on CT images. The outcomes of the 10 radiographic anteversion were compared in terms of linear correlation with the “gold” standard on CT images. Results: The correlations of the radiographic measured anteversions with the “gold” standard measured on CT images were 0.528 for the method of Liaw, 0.556 for Wan, 0.562 for the cross-lateral method, 0.586 for Hassan, 0.594 for Dorr, 0.602 for Lewinnek, 0.624 for Widmer, 0.671 for the lateral CT, 0.747 for Ackland, and 0.771 for the method of Riten Pradham. Conclusion: Anteversion measurement methods represent different projectional angles of the acetabular cup in different planes around different axes. Therefore, they differ from the “gold” standard and are not interchangeable, as is shown by this study. We consider the anatomical anteversion in the transverse plane rotating around the longitudinal axis as the “gold” standard and recommend avoiding using the term anteversion for other projectional angles in different planes.