Literature DB >> 27600714

Acetabular Wall Indices Help to Distinguish Acetabular Coverage in Asymptomatic Adults With Varying Morphologies.

Lucas A Anderson1, Mike B Anderson1, Jill A Erickson1, Jesse Chrastil1, Christopher L Peters2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The anterior wall index (AWI) and posterior wall index (PWI) have been proposed to quantify anterior and posterior acetabular coverage using AP pelvic radiographs. However, these indices have only been reported in symptomatic patients with apparent pathomorphologies (dysplasia, overcoverage, and retroversion) undergoing osteochondroplasty or reorientation osteotomy. QUESTIONS: (1) What are the ranges for AWI and PWI from measurements obtained on AP pelvic radiographs of asymptomatic senior athletes with well-functioning hips? (2) Is there a difference between the AWI and PWI in asymptomatic athletes with acetabular morphology consistent with acetabular dysplasia, overcoverage, and retroversion when compared with asymptomatic hips that do not meet the radiographic definitions for those morphologies (controls)?
METHODS: Five hundred five athletes (998 asymptomatic native hips) were independently evaluated by two readers on AP pelvic radiographs for AWI and the PWI after excluding hips with prior surgery, inadequate radiographs, or poor function (modified Harris hip score < 80). Hips with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) ≥ 20° and ≤ 38° and without acetabular retroversion, based on a positive crossover sign, were used as controls. Hips were categorized as developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH; undercoverage) if the LCEA was < 20°. Finally, overcoverage was defined as an LCEA > 38°. The mean age of the athletes was 67 years (range, 50-91 years) and 55% were men. Linear generalized estimating equation regression was used to compare each individual diagnosis (DDH, retroversion, overcoverage) with the controls for both AWI and PWI adjusting for age and sex.
RESULTS: The mean AWI in the study population was 0.36 (range, -0.02 to 0.91). The mean PWI was 1.13 (range, 0.12-1.74). The mean AWI and PWI in controls (n = 740) was 0.35 (range, -0.02 to 0.91) and 1.13 (range, 0.64-1.70), respectively. There were 25 (3%) with DDH in whom the mean AWI was 0.26 (range, 0.05-0.5) and the mean PWI was 1.03 (range, 0.71-1.3). There were 112 (11%) retroverted hips in whom the mean AWI was 0.42 (range, 0.1-0.89) and PWI was 1.02 (range, 0.61-1.5). There were 121 (12%) overcovered hips in whom the mean AWI was 0.43 (range, -0.18 to 0.85) and PWI was 1.22 (0.12-1.74). The AWI in the control hips was no different than that of DDH hips (β -0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to 0.002; p = 0.059) but was found to be lower than retroverted hips (β 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.11; p < 0.001) and overcovered hips (β 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08; p < 0.001). The PWI in control hips was greater than that of DDH hips (β -0.08; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.02; p = 0.013) and retroverted hips (β -0.07; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.04; p < 0.001) but was less than overcovered hips (β 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.10; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The measurements of AWI and PWI in well-functioning, asymptomatic hips may be useful in assessing anterior and posterior acetabular coverage because it was able to distinguish between different types of known pathologic morphology. Despite evidence of these morphologic variances, these senior athletes continued to function at a high level. Thus, the identification of morphologic variance was not consistent with signs of pathology, which further supports that early screening of morphology may not predict the development of symptomatic pathology. Future work should focus on comparing these indices for morphologic variance in both symptomatic and asymptomatic hips to determine whether these measurements can be used in identifying problematic hips and as reference ranges for surgical correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27600714      PMCID: PMC5339119          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-5055-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  19 in total

1.  Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers.

Authors:  K A Siebenrock; D F Kalbermatten; R Ganz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Radiographic analysis of femoroacetabular impingement with Hip2Norm-reliable and validated.

Authors:  Moritz Tannast; Sapan Mistry; Simon D Steppacher; Stephan Reichenbach; Frank Langlotz; Klaus A Siebenrock; Guoyan Zheng
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  A power primer.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  What are the radiographic reference values for acetabular under- and overcoverage?

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

5.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.

Authors:  L I Lin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Are normal hips being labeled as pathologic? A CT-based method for defining normal acetabular coverage.

Authors:  Christopher M Larson; Alexandre Moreau-Gaudry; Bryan T Kelly; J W Thomas Byrd; Jérôme Tonetti; Stephane Lavallee; Laurence Chabanas; Guillaume Barrier; Asheesh Bedi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The 2015 Frank Stinchfield Award: Radiographic Abnormalities Common in Senior Athletes With Well-functioning Hips but Not Associated With Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Lucas A Anderson; Mike B Anderson; Ashley Kapron; Stephen K Aoki; Jill A Erickson; Jesse Chrastil; Ramon Grijalva; Christopher Peters
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  M Beck; M Kalhor; M Leunig; R Ganz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-07

10.  Correlation between radiographic measures of acetabular morphology with 3D femoral head coverage in patients with acetabular retroversion.

Authors:  Benjamin J Hansen; Michael D Harris; Lucas A Anderson; Christopher L Peters; Jeffrey A Weiss; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  8 in total

1.  What Is the Reliability and Accuracy of Intraoperative Fluoroscopy in Evaluating Anterior, Lateral, and Posterior Coverage During Periacetabular Osteotomy?

Authors:  James D Wylie; Mariana G Ferrer; Michael P McClincy; Patricia E Miller; Michael B Millis; Young-Jo Kim; Eduardo N Novais
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  The borderline dysplastic hip: when and how is it abnormal?

Authors:  Sarah D Bixby; Michael B Millis
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-11-04

3.  Acetabular Version Increases During Adolescence Secondary to Reduced Anterior Femoral Head Coverage.

Authors:  George Grammatopoulos; Paul Jamieson; Johanna Dobransky; Kawan Rakhra; Sasha Carsen; Paul E Beaulé
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The Acetabular Wall Index Is Associated with Long-term Conversion to THA after PAO.

Authors:  Vera M Stetzelberger; Christiane S Leibold; Simon D Steppacher; Joseph M Schwab; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  CORR Insights®: Does the Rule of Thirds Adequately Detect Deficient and Excessive Acetabular Coverage?

Authors:  Takashi Nishii
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Does the Rule of Thirds Adequately Detect Deficient and Excessive Acetabular Coverage?

Authors:  Vera M Stetzelberger; Angela M Moosmann; Guoyan Zheng; Joseph M Schwab; Simon D Steppacher; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Do acetabular parameters measured on 2D imaging correlate with CT, and can lateral centre-edge angle predict femoral head coverage?

Authors:  Saif Salih; George Grammatopoulos; Sophia Burns; Margaret Hall-Craggs; Johan Witt
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-01

8.  Interrater Reliability of the Prone Apprehension Relocation Test.

Authors:  Lauren E Watchmaker; Scott J Hetzel; Ernest L Sink; Andrea M Spiker
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-09-20
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.