Literature DB >> 16570170

Computed tomography analysis of acetabular anteversion and abduction.

Eric S Stem1, Mary I O'Connor, Mark J Kransdorf, Julia Crook.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to define the normal range of acetabular abduction and anteversion in relation to pelvic anatomy as depicted on conventional CT scan.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 100 pelvic CT scans performed on patients presenting for evaluation of non-orthopaedic pathology. The study group consisted of 58 women and 42 men, aged between 18 and 88 years. Standard imaging protocol included an anteroposterior (AP) topogram with contiguous 5-mm thick axial images from the superior margin of the iliac crest to the lesser trochanter of the femur. The acetabular abduction was measured from the AP topogram by obtaining the angle between a line drawn from the acetabular teardrop to the lateral acetabular margin and a horizontal line between the ischial tuberosities. Acetabular anteversion was measured on axial images at the level of the mid-femoral head.
RESULTS: We found the mean acetabular abduction to be 39 degrees (standard deviation 4 degrees, range 27 to 51 degrees) and the mean acetabular anteversion to be 23 degrees (standard deviation 5 degrees, range 12 to 39 degrees). Data suggests that acetabular anteversion may average 2.7 degrees lower in males than females and increase slightly with age, while abduction may tend to decrease with age. Ninety percent of patients had acetabular abduction between 31 and 46 degrees; the 90% central range for acetabular anteversion was estimated to be from 14 to 31 degrees.
CONCLUSION: CT scanning is useful in accurately defining the normal range of acetabular abduction and antiversion. Knowledge of this normal anatomy will allow accurate assessment of acetabular component position as delineated on conventional CT scanning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16570170     DOI: 10.1007/s00256-006-0086-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  8 in total

1.  Radiographic calculation of anteversion in acetabular prostheses.

Authors:  D M Hassan; G H Johnston; W N Dust; L G Watson; D Cassidy
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Total hip replacement by low-friction arthroplasty.

Authors:  J Charnley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1970 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation.

Authors:  D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-03

4.  Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties.

Authors:  G E Lewinnek; J L Lewis; R Tarr; C L Compere; J R Zimmerman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Acetabular dysplasia in the adolescent and young adult.

Authors:  S B Murphy; P K Kijewski; M B Millis; A Harless
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The Frank Stinchfield Award: Morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning.

Authors:  M Maruyama; J R Feinberg; W N Capello; J A D'Antonio
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Computed tomography measurements of the acetabulum in adult dysplastic hips: which level is appropriate?

Authors:  S Anda; T Terjesen; K A Kvistad
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Acetabular retroversion is associated with osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  Nicholas J Giori; Robert T Trousdale
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.176

  8 in total
  28 in total

1.  Acetabular component positioning using anatomic landmarks of the acetabulum.

Authors:  Yong-Chan Ha; Jeong Joon Yoo; Young-Kyun Lee; Jin Young Kim; Kyung-Hoi Koo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Can acetabular orientation be restored by lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis patients with thoracolumbar kyphosis?

Authors:  Jun Hu; Bang-Ping Qian; Yong Qiu; Bin Wang; Yang Yu; Ze-Zhang Zhu; Jun Jiang; Sai-Hu Mao; Zhe Qu; Yun-Peng Zhang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Multilevel measurement of acetabular version using 3-D CT-generated models: implications for hip preservation surgery.

Authors:  Aimee C Perreira; John C Hunter; Thaddeus Laird; Amir A Jamali
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Femoral anteversion in THA and its lack of correlation with native acetabular anteversion.

Authors:  William L Bargar; Amir A Jamali; Amir H Nejad
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Acetabular orientation: anatomical and functional measurement.

Authors:  Omri Lubovsky; David Wright; Michael Hardisty; Alex Kiss; Hans Kreder; Cari Whyne
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2011-08-07       Impact factor: 2.924

6.  Sex- and age-specific differences in femoral head coverage and acetabular morphology among healthy subjects-derivation of normal ranges and thresholds for abnormality.

Authors:  Dai Miyasaka; Yoshinori Sakai; Shinya Ibuchi; Hayato Suzuki; Norio Imai; Naoto Endo
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  New method for measuring acetabular component positioning with EOS imaging: feasibility study on dry bone.

Authors:  Alexandre Journé; Jérome Sadaka; Claire Bélicourt; Alain Sautet
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 8.  [Modified Salter innominate osteotomy in adults].

Authors:  B Heimkes; F Schmidutz; J Rösner; V Frimberger; P Weber
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 1.154

9.  Computed tomographic measurement of acetabular and femoral component version in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Takaaki Fujishiro; Shinya Hayashi; Noriyuki Kanzaki; Shingo Hashimoto; Masahiro Kurosaka; Taiki Kanno; Takeshi Masuda
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Comparison of acetabular version angle measurements between prone and reformatted supine computed tomography images.

Authors:  Le Roy Chong; Chow Wei Too
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2013-12-14       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.