Student radiographers’ knowledge and experience of lateral hip X-ray positioning: A survey

Introduction: The horizontal beam lateral (HBL) position technique for X-ray imaging has been used for nearly a century; however, this can be challenging for the patient and the practitioner, as it potentially compromises patient dignity. This study explores student radiographers' knowledge and experience of lateral hip positions and their impact on diagnostic quality and patient dignity.

Method: A cross-sectional mixed-method online survey of undergraduate diagnostic radiography students was completed. Likert scale assessments, rank ordering questions, and free-test qualitative responses were utilised for questions on knowledge and experience of different positioning, ease to obtain, patient dignity, diagnostic quality, and need for repeats. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation non-parametric analysis against variables of age, gender and year of study.

Results: Responses were received by n ¼ 42/158 students, a response rate of 27%. The HBL position was the most commonly repeated image (76.6%); the qualitative themes included HBL image quality issues and difficulty in the HBL positioning for elderly or frail patients, often in discomfort and pain. Analysis of student responses to perceived patient dignity in positioning identified 73.8% found the HBL undignified, and 85.7% agreed the Clements-Nakayama (CN) position would be more dignified for patients. The diagnostic image quality of the HBL position (64.2%) was compared to the CN alternative axiolateral (66.6%). Comparison of ease of obtaining the correct position for HBL (47.6%) was higher than CN position (28.6%); this could be due to the lack of experience n ¼ 3/42 (7.1%) of this position.

Conclusion: Overall, student radiographers' experience and knowledge of various lateral hip positions observed in clinical practice was good. The CN position scored high for diagnostic image (66.6%) and dignity for the patient (85.7%), over the often repeated HBL position (76.6%), which scored lower for image quality (64.2%) and dignity (76.6%).

Implications for practice: Radiographers should advocate for professional autonomy and explore alternative positioning techniques. Further investigation into the CN position's utilisation, image quality and radiation dose in England is recommended.

1. Abraham A., Hajipour L., Innes AR., Phillips H., McCaskie AW. Are national guidelines for total hip replacement in the UK reflected in practice? The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 2006;88(2):108–15. Doi: 10.1308/003588406x82943.
2. Wyatt S., Bailey R., Moore P., Revell M. Equity of access to NHS-funded hip replacements in England and Wales: Trends from 2006 to 2016. The Lancet Regional Health–Europe 2022;21. Doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100475.
3. NHS Digital. Finalised Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in England for Hip & Knee Replacements, April 2018- March 2019: Official statistics, London; 2018.
4. Lim S-J., Park Y-S. Plain radiography of the hip: a review of radiographic techniques and image features. Hip Pelvis 2015;27(3):125. Doi: 10.5371/hp.2015.27.3.125.
5. Danelius G., Miller LF. Lateral view of the hip. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1936;35:282–4.
6. Kruithoff ML., McGrory BJ. The value of the direct lateral hip radiograph in an adult reconstruction practice. Arthroplast Today 2021;8:29–34. Doi: 10.1016{].artd.2020.12.020.
7. Health and Care Professions Council. Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, London; 2016.
8. Clements RW., Nakayama HK. Radiographic methods in total hip arthroplasty. Radiol Technol 1980;51(5):589–600.
9. Lee WC., Luo FY., Tiong KKQ., Chia NWK., Tham LMH., Tan TJ. Accuracy of a modified axiolateral radiographic hip projection in suspected cases of hip fracture: experience and results from a regional trauma centre. Emerg Radiol 2017;24:7–11. Doi: 10.1007/s10140-016-1434-x.
10. Letournel E., Judet R. Fractures of the Acetabulum, vol. 2, London: Springer-Verlag; 1993.
11. Holm T., Palmer PES., Lehtinen E., Organization WH. Manual of radiographic technique, World Health Organization; 1986.
12. Whitley AS., Jefferson G., Holmes K., Sloane C., Anderson C., Hoadley G. Clark’s positioning in radiography 13E, crc Press; 2015.
13. Clark KC., Kreel L., Paris A. Clark’s positioning in radiography. (No Title) 1986.
14. Kreel L., Paris A. Clark’s Positioning in Radiography, 10th ed., Year Book Medical Pub; 1980.
15. Whitley A., Sloane C., Hoadley G., Moore A., Alsop C. Clark’s Positioning in Radiography 2006.
16. Davies AM., Pettersson H. The WHO manual of diagnostic imaging: radiographic anatomy and interpretation of the musculoskeletal system, vol. 2, World Health Organization; 2002.
17. Nishimura T., Watanabe H., Taki N., Kikkawa I., Takeshita K. Standard radiographic values for the acetabulum in Japanese adolescents: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24(1):257. Doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06368-z.
18. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Dosimetry in Diagnostic Radiology; A Guide for Meeting JCAHO and ACR Requirements and /GRP, Texas: United states Air Force; 1988.
19. Lee Y-K., Chung CY., Koo K-H., Lee KM., Kwon DG., Park MS. Measuring acetabular dysplasia in plain radiographs. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011;131:1219–26. Doi: 10.1007/s00402-011-1279-4.
20. American Registry of Radiologic Technologists. Radiology: Examination content specifications, St. Paul; 2022.
21. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP (135) Diagnostic Reference Levels in medical Imaging, vol. 46, 1st ed., International Commission on Radiological Protection; 2017.
22. Public Health England. HPA-CRCE-034: doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic x-ray imaging procedures in the UK - 2010 review, London; 2012.
23. UK Government. Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R) 2017 (SI 2017/1322), London: HMSO; 2017.
24. UK Health Security Agency. National Diagnostic Reference Levels (NDRLs) from 13 October 2022, London; 2022.
25. Dunn DM., Notley B. Anteversion of the neck of the femur: a method of measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1952;34(2):181–6. Doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.34B2.181.
26. Meyer DC., Beck M., Ellis T., Ganz R., Leunig M. Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;445:181–5. Doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000201168.72388.24.
27. Lawrence CR., Parker MJ. Complication rates relating to the degree of displacement of femoral neck fractures: a clinical study of 878 internally fixed intracapsular fractures. Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma 2011;1(online):1–6. Doi: 10.4303{jot/235398.
28. Tannast M., Mistry S., Steppacher SD., Reichenbach S., Siebenroc KA., Zheng G. A comprehensive validation of a new method for correction of radiographic hip parameters for pelvic malpositioning. Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 91, Bone & Joint; 2009, p. 451.
29. Murphy SB., Ganz R., Müller ME. The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome. JBJS 1995;77(7):985–9. Doi: 10.2106/00004623-199507000-00002.
30. Stephenson‐Smith B., Neep MJ., Rowntree P. Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit. J Med Radiat Sci 2021;68(3):245–52. Doi: 10.1002{jmrs.468.
31. Rudman N., McIlmail D. Emergency department evaluation and treatment of hip and thigh injuries. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2000;18(1):29–66. Doi: 10.1016/S0733-8627{05)70107-3.
32. Cannon J., Silvestri S., Munro M. Imaging Choices in Occult Hip Fracture. J Emerg Med 2009;37(2):144–52. Doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.12.039.
33. Polesello GC., Nakao TS., Queiroz MC de., Daniachi D., Ricioli Junior W., Guimarães RP., et al. Proposal for standardisation of radiographic studies on the hip and pelvis. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2011;46(6):634–42. Doi: 10.1590/S0102-36162011000600003.
34. Clohisy JC., Carlisle JC., Beaulé PE., Kim Y-J., Trousdale RT., Sierra RJ., et al. A Systematic Approach to the Plain Radiographic Evaluation of the Young Adult Hip. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2008;90(Supplement_4):47–66. Doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00756.
35. Mascarenhas V V., Ayeni OR., Egund N., Jurik AG., Caetano A., Castro M., et al. Imaging Methodology for Hip Preservation: Techniques, Parameters, and Thresholds. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2019;23(03):197–226. Doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1688714.
36. Bell J., Waters S. Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-time Researchers, 6th ed., Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.
37. Anthology Inc. Blackboard Ultra 2024.
38. Microsoft IT Corporation. Forms 2024.
39. Microsoft IT Corporation. Excel 2024.
40. Braun V and C V. Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3(2):77–101.
41. Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant 2022;56(3):1391–412. Doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y.
42. Clarke V., Braun V. Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners 2013.
43. Braun V., Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2019;11(4):589–97.
44. Braun V., Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol 2021;18(3):328–52.
45. Naeem M., Ozuem W., Howell K., Ranfagni S. A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 2023;22:16094069231205788. Doi: 10.1177/16094069231205789.
46. Braun V., Clarke V. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. Int J Transgend Health 2023;24(1):1–6. Doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597.
47. Bowling A. Research Methods in Health, Investigating Health and Health Services, 4th ed., Berkshire: Open University Press; 2014.
48. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). SPSS Statistics (V.29.0.0.0(241) 2020.
49. Lakens D. The Practical Alternative to the p Value Is the Correctly Used p Value. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2021;16(3):639–48. Doi: 10.1177/1745691620958012.
50. Health Care Professions Council. Number of diagnostic radiographers on the HCPC Register . Available from: https://www.hcpc-uk.org/resources/freedom-of-information-requests/20... [accessed July 21, 2023].
51. Hyde E., Hardy M. Patient centred care in diagnostic radiography (Part 3): Perceptions of student radiographers and radiography academics. Radiography 2021;27(3):803–10. Doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.12.013.
52. NHS England. Five Year Forward View, London; 2014.
53. NHS England. NHS Long Term Plan , London; 2019.
54. Health and Care Professions Council. Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers, London; 2023.
55. Hendry J. Promoting compassionate care in radiography – What might be suitable pedagogy? A discussion paper. Radiography 2019;25(3):269–73. Doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.01.005.
56. Mc Fadden S., Roding T., de Vries G., Benwell M., Bijwaard H., Scheurleer J. Digital imaging and radiographic practise in diagnostic radiography: An overview of current knowledge and practice in Europe. Radiography 2018;24(2):137–41. Doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2017.11.004.
57. Grainger RG. Positioning in Radiography. by KC Clark. Ilford Manual. Wm. Heinemann Medical Books Ltd. Price£ 6 6s. pp. 806. 2539 illustrations. 1965.
58. Kobayashi N., Sumi K., Higashihira S., Choe H., Tezuka T., Oishi T., et al. Correlations and reproducibility between radiographic and radial alpha angles in the evaluation of cam morphology. Orthop J Sports Med 2020;8(7):2325967120932922. Doi: 10.1177/2325967120932922.
59. Barton C., Salineros MJ., Rakhra KS., Beaulé PE. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:464–9. Doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1624-x.
60. Vanrusselt J., Vansevenant M., Vanderschueren G., Vanhoenacker F. Postoperative radiograph of the hip arthroplasty: what the radiologist should know. Insights Imaging 2015;6:591–600. Doi: 10.1007/s13244-015-0438-5.
61. Risberg G., Johansson EE., Hamberg K. A theoretical model for analysing gender bias in medicine. Int J Equity Health 2009;8:1–8. Doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-8-28.
62. Atkinson S., Neep M., Starkey D. Reject rate analysis in digital radiography: an Australian emergency imaging department case study. J Med Radiat Sci 2020;67(1):72–9. Doi: 10.1002/jmrs.343.
63. Decoster R., Toomey R., Smits D., Haygood TM., Ryan M. Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers. J Med Radiat Sci 2023;70(2):127–36. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.641.
64. American Registry of Radiologic Technologists. Radiology: Examination content specifications: . Radiology: Examination Content Specifications: . Available from: https://www.arrt.org/pages/arrt-reference¬ documents/by-document-type/examination-content-specifications [accessed May 22, 2024].
65. Rawle M., Pighills A., Mendez D., Dobeli K. Radiographic technique modification and evidence‐based practice: A qualitative study. J Med Radiat Sci 2023;70(1):56–63. Doi: 10.1002/jmrs.616.
66. Royal College of Radiologists. iRefer: Making the best use of clinical radiology, London: Royal College of Radiologists; 2017.
67. Rivera-Montalvo T. Diagnostic radiology dosimetry: Status and trends. Applied Radiation and Isotopes 2016;117:74–81. Doi: 10.1016{].apradiso.2016.03.008.
68. Matilainen K., Ahonen S., Kankkunen P., Kangasniemi M. Radiographers’ perceptions of their professional rights in diagnostic radiography: a qualitative interview study. Scand J Caring Sci 2017;31(1):139–45. Doi: 10.1111/scs.12335.
69. Health Education England., Skills for Health., Skills for Care. Person-Centred Approaches: Empowering people in their lives and communities to enable an upgrade in prevention, wellbeing, health, care and support. A core skills education and training framework., London; 2017.