Vera M Stetzelberger1,2, Angela M Moosmann1, Guoyan Zheng3, Joseph M Schwab4, Simon D Steppacher2, Moritz Tannast1,2. 1. V. M. Stetzelberger, A. M. Moosmann, M. Tannast, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. 2. V. M. Stetzelberger, S. D. Steppacher, M. Tannast, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. G. Zheng, Institute of Medical Robotics, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 4. J. M. Schwab, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of AP acetabular coverage is crucial for choosing the right surgery indication and for obtaining a good outcome after hip-preserving surgery. The quantification of anterior and posterior coverage is challenging and requires either other conventional projections, CT, MRI, or special measurement software, which is cumbersome, not widely available and implies additional radiation. We introduce the "rule of thirds" as a promising alternative to provide a more applicable and easy method to detect an excessive or deficient AP coverage. This method attributes the intersection point of the anterior (posterior) wall to thirds of the femoral head radius (diameter), the medial third suggesting deficient and the lateral third excessive coverage. QUESTION/ PURPOSE: What is the validity (area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratios [LR(+)/LR(-)], positive/negative predictive values [PPV, NPV]) for the rule of thirds to detect (1) excessive and (2) deficient anterior and posterior coverages compared with previously established radiographic values of under-/overcoverage using Hip2Norm as the gold standard? METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients between 2003 and 2015 from our institutional database who were referred to our hospital for hip pain and were potentially eligible for joint-preserving hip surgery. We divided the study group into six specific subgroups based on the respective acetabular pathomorphology to cover the entire range of anterior and posterior femoral coverage (dysplasia, overcoverage, severe overcoverage, excessive acetabular anteversion, acetabular retroversion, total acetabular retroversion). From this patient cohort, 161 hips were randomly selected for analysis. Anterior and posterior coverage was determined with Hip2Norm, a validated computer software program for evaluating acetabular morphology. The anterior and posterior wall indices were measured on standardized AP pelvis radiographs, and the rule of thirds was applied by one observer. RESULTS: The detection of excessive anterior and posterior acetabular wall using the rule of thirds revealed an AUC of 0.945 and 0.933, respectively. Also the detection of a deficient anterior and posterior acetabular wall by applying the rule of thirds revealed an AUC of 0.962 and 0.876, respectively. For both excessive and deficient anterior and posterior acetabular coverage, we found high specificities and PPVs but low sensitivities and NPVs. CONCLUSION: We found a high probability for an excessive (deficient) acetabular wall when this intersection point lies in the lateral (medial) third, which would qualify for surgical correction. On the other hand, if this point is not in the lateral (medial) third, an excessive (deficient) acetabular wall cannot be categorically excluded. Thus, the rule of thirds is very specific but not as sensitive as we had expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of AP acetabular coverage is crucial for choosing the right surgery indication and for obtaining a good outcome after hip-preserving surgery. The quantification of anterior and posterior coverage is challenging and requires either other conventional projections, CT, MRI, or special measurement software, which is cumbersome, not widely available and implies additional radiation. We introduce the "rule of thirds" as a promising alternative to provide a more applicable and easy method to detect an excessive or deficient AP coverage. This method attributes the intersection point of the anterior (posterior) wall to thirds of the femoral head radius (diameter), the medial third suggesting deficient and the lateral third excessive coverage. QUESTION/ PURPOSE: What is the validity (area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratios [LR(+)/LR(-)], positive/negative predictive values [PPV, NPV]) for the rule of thirds to detect (1) excessive and (2) deficient anterior and posterior coverages compared with previously established radiographic values of under-/overcoverage using Hip2Norm as the gold standard? METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients between 2003 and 2015 from our institutional database who were referred to our hospital for hip pain and were potentially eligible for joint-preserving hip surgery. We divided the study group into six specific subgroups based on the respective acetabular pathomorphology to cover the entire range of anterior and posterior femoral coverage (dysplasia, overcoverage, severe overcoverage, excessive acetabular anteversion, acetabular retroversion, total acetabular retroversion). From this patient cohort, 161 hips were randomly selected for analysis. Anterior and posterior coverage was determined with Hip2Norm, a validated computer software program for evaluating acetabular morphology. The anterior and posterior wall indices were measured on standardized AP pelvis radiographs, and the rule of thirds was applied by one observer. RESULTS: The detection of excessive anterior and posterior acetabular wall using the rule of thirds revealed an AUC of 0.945 and 0.933, respectively. Also the detection of a deficient anterior and posterior acetabular wall by applying the rule of thirds revealed an AUC of 0.962 and 0.876, respectively. For both excessive and deficient anterior and posterior acetabular coverage, we found high specificities and PPVs but low sensitivities and NPVs. CONCLUSION: We found a high probability for an excessive (deficient) acetabular wall when this intersection point lies in the lateral (medial) third, which would qualify for surgical correction. On the other hand, if this point is not in the lateral (medial) third, an excessive (deficient) acetabular wall cannot be categorically excluded. Thus, the rule of thirds is very specific but not as sensitive as we had expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.
Authors: Till D Lerch; Celia Degonda; Florian Schmaranzer; Inga Todorski; Jennifer Cullmann-Bastian; Guoyan Zheng; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Till Dominic Lerch; Simon Damian Steppacher; Emanuel Francis Liechti; Moritz Tannast; Klaus Arno Siebenrock Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Michael P McClincy; James D Wylie; Young-Jo Kim; Michael B Millis; Eduardo N Novais Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Simon D Steppacher; Christoph E Albers; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast; Reinhold Ganz Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Lucas A Anderson; Mike B Anderson; Jill A Erickson; Jesse Chrastil; Christopher L Peters Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jesse C Christensen; Jennifer D Marland; Caitlin J Miller; Brandy S Horton; Daniel R Whiting; Hugh S West Journal: J Hip Preserv Surg Date: 2019-03-20
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