BACKGROUND: Recent biplanar radiographic studies have demonstrated acetabular retroversion and increased superolateral femoral head coverage in hips with slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), seemingly divergent from earlier CT-based studies suggesting normal acetabular version. QUESTION/PURPOSES: We therefore asked: Are there differences in (1) acetabular version at the superior ¼ of the acetabular dome (AV(sup)), (2) acetabular version at the center of the femoral head (AV(cen)), and (3) superolateral femoral head coverage (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA]) among affected SCFE hips, unaffected hips, and normal controls? METHODS: We identified 32 patients with SCFE who underwent CT between 2007 and 2012. Twenty-three met our inclusion criteria. Seventy-six age- and sex-matched normal patients comprised the control group. Pelvic rotation, tilt, and inclination were corrected on each CT. AV(sup), AV(cen), and LCEA were measured. RESULTS: The mean AV(sup) of the affected hips (-1.71°) demonstrated retroversion compared to the unaffected hips and the control group; the mean AV(sup) of the unaffected hips was similar to that of the normal controls. Mean AVcen was similar among the three groups. The LCEA was higher in affected and unaffected SCFE hips than in the control group (34.3° versus 34.5° versus 28.9°, respectively), but we found no difference between affected and unaffected hips. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest an association of superior acetabular retroversion and increased superolateral femoral head coverage in SCFE. Whether this represents a primary abnormal morphology or a secondary pathologic response remains unclear. Further studies investigating the role of acetabular morphology in SCFE and its implications for development of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Recent biplanar radiographic studies have demonstrated acetabular retroversion and increased superolateral femoral head coverage in hips with slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), seemingly divergent from earlier CT-based studies suggesting normal acetabular version. QUESTION/PURPOSES: We therefore asked: Are there differences in (1) acetabular version at the superior ¼ of the acetabular dome (AV(sup)), (2) acetabular version at the center of the femoral head (AV(cen)), and (3) superolateral femoral head coverage (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA]) among affected SCFE hips, unaffected hips, and normal controls? METHODS: We identified 32 patients with SCFE who underwent CT between 2007 and 2012. Twenty-three met our inclusion criteria. Seventy-six age- and sex-matched normal patients comprised the control group. Pelvic rotation, tilt, and inclination were corrected on each CT. AV(sup), AV(cen), and LCEA were measured. RESULTS: The mean AV(sup) of the affected hips (-1.71°) demonstrated retroversion compared to the unaffected hips and the control group; the mean AV(sup) of the unaffected hips was similar to that of the normal controls. Mean AVcen was similar among the three groups. The LCEA was higher in affected and unaffected SCFE hips than in the control group (34.3° versus 34.5° versus 28.9°, respectively), but we found no difference between affected and unaffected hips. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest an association of superior acetabular retroversion and increased superolateral femoral head coverage in SCFE. Whether this represents a primary abnormal morphology or a secondary pathologic response remains unclear. Further studies investigating the role of acetabular morphology in SCFE and its implications for development of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement are warranted.
Authors: Wael Dandachli; Saif Ul Islam; Richard Tippett; Margaret A Hall-Craggs; Johan D Witt Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 2.199