Le Roy Chong1, Chow Wei Too. 1. Department of Radiology, Changi General Hospital, 2 Simei Street 3, Singapore, 529889, Singapore, lrchong@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare acetabular version angle measurements of CT scans in the prone and reformatted supine positions. CT acetabular version angle measurements have previously been done in the prone position to correct for pelvic tilt. With the advent of multidetector CT, recent studies have evaluated acetabular version angles measured in the supine position. To our knowledge, a comparison between these two approaches has not been performed. STUDY DESIGN: Case series in which consecutive CT urography studies of 49 adult patients performed in both prone and supine positions were retrospectively reviewed, and acetabular version angles of both hips measured. METHOD: Retrospective review of 49 consecutive CT urography studies performed in both prone and supine positions was done, and acetabular version angles of both hips were measured. Two radiologists measured the acetabular version angles independently. Multiplanar reformation of the supine CT images was performed to compensate for pelvic tilt and rotation prior to angle measurements. RESULTS: There was excellent interobserver agreement between the two readers (ICC = 0.90). Acetabular version angle measurements from the prone CT images were larger compared to reformatted supine images (24.0 and 21.3°, respectively, p < 0.0001), with greater angles found in women. There was strong correlation between supine and prone acetabular version angle measurements with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.743. CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular version angles measured from prone and reformatted supine CT images show strong correlation but are significantly different with larger angles obtained from the former and in women; clinical implications of these findings may require further study in other to determine the best method of version angle measurement. CT acetabular version angle measurement is also reliable with excellent interobserver correlation.
PURPOSE: To compare acetabular version angle measurements of CT scans in the prone and reformatted supine positions. CT acetabular version angle measurements have previously been done in the prone position to correct for pelvic tilt. With the advent of multidetector CT, recent studies have evaluated acetabular version angles measured in the supine position. To our knowledge, a comparison between these two approaches has not been performed. STUDY DESIGN: Case series in which consecutive CT urography studies of 49 adult patients performed in both prone and supine positions were retrospectively reviewed, and acetabular version angles of both hips measured. METHOD: Retrospective review of 49 consecutive CT urography studies performed in both prone and supine positions was done, and acetabular version angles of both hips were measured. Two radiologists measured the acetabular version angles independently. Multiplanar reformation of the supine CT images was performed to compensate for pelvic tilt and rotation prior to angle measurements. RESULTS: There was excellent interobserver agreement between the two readers (ICC = 0.90). Acetabular version angle measurements from the prone CT images were larger compared to reformatted supine images (24.0 and 21.3°, respectively, p < 0.0001), with greater angles found in women. There was strong correlation between supine and prone acetabular version angle measurements with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.743. CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular version angles measured from prone and reformatted supine CT images show strong correlation but are significantly different with larger angles obtained from the former and in women; clinical implications of these findings may require further study in other to determine the best method of version angle measurement. CT acetabular version angle measurement is also reliable with excellent interobserver correlation.
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
Authors: Ashley Nitschke; Jeffery R Lambert; Deborah H Glueck; Mary Kristen Jesse; Omer Mei-Dan; Colin Strickland; Brian Petersen Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 2.199