Christoph Kolja Boese1, Jens Dargel2, Johannes Oppermann2, Peer Eysel2, Max Joseph Scheyerer2, Jan Bredow2, Philipp Lechler3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann Str. 9, 50931, Cologne, Germany. christoph.boese@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann Str. 9, 50931, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Giessen and Marburg, Marburg, Germany. lechler@med.uni-marburg.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The femoral neck-shaft angle (NSA) is an important measure for the assessment of the anatomy of the hip and planning of operations. Despite its common use, there remains disagreement concerning the method of measurement and the correction of hip rotation and femoral version of the projected NSA on conventional radiographs. We addressed the following questions: (1) What are the reported values for NSA in normal adult subjects and in osteoarthritis? (2) Is there a difference between non-corrected and rotation-corrected measurements? (3) Which methods are used for measuring the NSA on plain radiographs? (4) What could be learned from an analysis of the intra- and interobserver reliability? MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed including 26 publications reporting the measurement of the NSA on conventional radiographs. RESULTS: The mean NSA of healthy adults (5,089 hips) was 128.8° (98-180°) and 131.5° (115-155°) in patients with osteoarthritis (1230 hips). The mean NSA was 128.5° (127-130.5°) for the rotation-corrected and 129.5° (119.6-151°) for the non-corrected measurements. CONCLUSION: Our data showed a high variance of the reported neck-shaft angles. Notably, we identified the inconsistency of the published methods of measurement as a central issue. The reported effect of rotation-correction cannot be reliably verified.
OBJECTIVE: The femoral neck-shaft angle (NSA) is an important measure for the assessment of the anatomy of the hip and planning of operations. Despite its common use, there remains disagreement concerning the method of measurement and the correction of hip rotation and femoral version of the projected NSA on conventional radiographs. We addressed the following questions: (1) What are the reported values for NSA in normal adult subjects and in osteoarthritis? (2) Is there a difference between non-corrected and rotation-corrected measurements? (3) Which methods are used for measuring the NSA on plain radiographs? (4) What could be learned from an analysis of the intra- and interobserver reliability? MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed including 26 publications reporting the measurement of the NSA on conventional radiographs. RESULTS: The mean NSA of healthy adults (5,089 hips) was 128.8° (98-180°) and 131.5° (115-155°) in patients with osteoarthritis (1230 hips). The mean NSA was 128.5° (127-130.5°) for the rotation-corrected and 129.5° (119.6-151°) for the non-corrected measurements. CONCLUSION: Our data showed a high variance of the reported neck-shaft angles. Notably, we identified the inconsistency of the published methods of measurement as a central issue. The reported effect of rotation-correction cannot be reliably verified.
Entities:
Keywords:
CCD; Caput-collum-diaphyseal angle; Hip anatomy; Hip arthroplasty; NSA; Neck shaft angle
Authors: D A Nelson; T J Beck; G Wu; C E Lewis; T Bassford; J A Cauley; M S LeBoff; S B Going; Z Chen Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Vasco V Mascarenhas; Miguel O Castro; P Diana Afonso; Paulo Rego; Michael Dienst; Reto Sutter; Florian Schmaranzer; Luca Sconfienza; Ara Kassarjian; Olufemi R Ayeni; Paul E Beaulé; Pedro Dantas; Radhesh Lalam; Marc-André Weber; Filip M Vanhoenacker; Tobias Johannes Dietrich; Lennart Jans; Philip Robinson; Apostolos H Karantanas; Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska; Suzanne Anderson; Iris Noebauer-Huhmann; Oliver Marin-Peña; Diego Collado; Marc Tey-Pons; Ehrenfried Schmaranzer; Mario Padron; Josef Kramer; Patrick O Zingg; Michel De Maeseneer; Eva Llopis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Vasco V Mascarenhas; Paulo Rego; Pedro Dantas; Miguel Castro; Lennart Jans; Rui M Marques; Nélia Gouveia; Francisco Soldado; Olufemi R Ayeni; José G Consciência Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joel Wells; Jeffrey J Nepple; Karla Crook; James R Ross; Asheesh Bedi; Perry Schoenecker; John C Clohisy Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Robin Canetti; Benoit de Saint Vincent; Thais D Vieira; Vincent Fière; Mathieu Thaunat Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.199