Literature DB >> 21323284

Center edge angle measurement for hip preservation surgery: technique and caveats.

Lucas A Anderson1, Jeremy Gililland, Christopher Pelt, Samuel Linford, Gregory J Stoddard, Christopher L Peters.   

Abstract

Anterior and lateral center edge angles have traditionally been used to determine acetabular coverage, and thereby strongly influence the decision to perform acetabular reorientation versus osteochondroplasty in patients with dysplasia and/or femoroacetabular impingement. We propose templating the center of the contained articular femoral head in aspherical hips to provide reliable assessment of acetabular coverage. Digital radiographs of 30 patients with various combinations of femoral and acetabular morphologies were evaluated using 2 methods to identify the anterior center edge angle and lateral center edge angle. The control method used an estimated femoral head center for angle apex. The study technique determined the center of the femoral head by templating the congruent aspect of the femoral head contained by the acetabulum while ignoring the increasing lateral and anterior radius associated with cam deformities. Four readers measured lateral center edge angles on anteroposterior radiographs and anterior center edge angles on false-profile radiographs. Two reads were performed by each reader using both the estimated and the templated methods for a total of 4 reads. Interobserver reliability using the proposed method compared to the standard was much improved for anterior center edge angles (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.76 vs 0.55) as well as with lateral center edge angles (ICC of 0.80 vs 0.42). Decreased correlation was most commonly associated with abnormal sourcil morphology, posterior wall deficiency combined with calcified labra, and os acetabuli. Including the anterolateral cam deformity in identifying the center of the femoral head for measuring center edge angles leads to an underestimation of acetabular coverage, which may negatively affect hip preservation surgical decision making. Copyright 2011, SLACK Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21323284     DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20101221-17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopedics        ISSN: 0147-7447            Impact factor:   1.390


  22 in total

1.  Preoperative three-dimensional CT predicts intraoperative findings in hip arthroscopy.

Authors:  Benton E Heyworth; Mark M Dolan; Joseph T Nguyen; Neal C Chen; Bryan T Kelly
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Source-to-detector distance and beam center do not affect radiographic measurements of acetabular morphology.

Authors:  Ashton H Goldman; Kevin B Hoover
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-01-22       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Are there sex-dependent differences in acetabular dysplasia characteristics?

Authors:  Stephen T Duncan; Ljiljana Bogunovic; Geneva Baca; Perry L Schoenecker; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01-31       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Do fluoroscopy and postoperative radiographs correlate for periacetabular osteotomy corrections?

Authors:  Charles L Lehmann; Jeffrey J Nepple; Geneva Baca; Perry L Schoenecker; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Subject-specific analysis of joint contact mechanics: application to the study of osteoarthritis and surgical planning.

Authors:  Corinne R Henak; Andrew E Anderson; Jeffrey A Weiss
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.097

6.  Prevalence and treatment of intraarticular pathology recognized at the time of periacetabular osteotomy for the dysplastic hip.

Authors:  John G Ginnetti; Christopher E Pelt; Jill A Erickson; Christin Van Dine; Christopher L Peters
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Do Radiographic Parameters of Dysplasia Improve to Normal Ranges After Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy?

Authors:  Eduardo N Novais; Stephen Duncan; Jeffrey Nepple; Gail Pashos; Perry L Schoenecker; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt?

Authors:  Moritz Tannast; Stefan Fritsch; Guoyan Zheng; Klaus A Siebenrock; Simon D Steppacher
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Preservation of the rectus femoris origin during periacetabular osteotomy does not compromise acetabular reorientation.

Authors:  Christopher L Peters; Jill A Erickson; Mike B Anderson; Lucas A Anderson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Can radiographic morphometric parameters for the hip be assessed on MRI?

Authors:  David Stelzeneder; Andreas Hingsammer; Sarah D Bixby; Young-Jo Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.