Article

Pelvic Morphology Differs in Rotation and Obliquity Between Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip and Retroversion

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Murtenstrasse, Inselspital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland, .
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.88). 07/2012; 470(12). DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2473-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and acetabular retroversion represent distinct acetabular pathomorphologies. Both are associated with alterations in pelvic morphology. In cases where direct radiographic assessment of the acetabulum is difficult or impossible or in mixed cases of DDH and retroversion, additional indirect pelvimetric parameters would help identify the major underlying structural abnormality. Questions/Purposes We asked: How does DDH and retroversion differ with respect to rotation and coronal obliquity as measured by the pelvic width index, anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) sign, ilioischial angle, and obturator index? And what is the predictive value of each variable in detecting acetabular retroversion? Methods We reviewed AP pelvis radiographs for 51 dysplastic and 51 retroverted hips. Dysplasia was diagnosed Based on a lateral center-edge angle of less than 20 degrees and an acetabular index of greater than 14 degrees. Retroversion was diagnosed based on a lateral center-edge angle of greater than 25 degrees and concomitant presence of the crossover/ischial spine/posterior wall signs. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for each variable used to diagnose acetabular retroversion. Results We found a lower pelvic width index, higher prevalence of the AIIS sign, higher ilioischial angle, and lower obturator index in acetabular retroversion. The entire innominate bone is internally rotated in DDH and externally rotated in retroversion. The areas under the ROC curve were 0.969 (pelvic width index), 0.776 (AIIS sign), 0.971 (ilioischial angle), and 0.925 (obturator index). Conclusions Pelvic morphology is associated with acetabular pathomorphology. Our measurements, except the AIIS sign, are indirect indicators of acetabular retroversion. The data suggest they can be used when the acetabular rim is not clearly visible and retroversion is not obvious.

2 Followers
 · 
137 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acetabular rim trimming is indicated in pincer hips with an oversized lunate surface but could result in a critically decreased size of the lunate surface in pincer hips with acetabular malorientation. There is a lack of detailed three-dimensional anatomy of lunate surface in pincer hips. Therefore, we questioned how does (1) size and (2) shape of the lunate surface differ among hips with different types of pincer impingement?
    Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 05/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.joca.2014.05.010 · 4.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Acetabular retroversion has been recently implicated as an important factor in the development of femoral acetabular impingement and hip osteoarthritis. The proper function of the hip joint requires that the anatomic features of the acetabulum and femoral head complement one another. In acetabular retroversion, the alignment of the acetabulum is altered where it opens in a posterolaterally instead of anterior direction. Changes in acetabular orientation can occur with alterations in pelvic tilt (anterior/posterior), and pelvic rotation (left/right). An overlooked problem that alters pelvic tilt and rotation, often seen by physical therapists, is sacroiliac joint dysfunction. A unique feature that develops in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD) is asymmetry between the left and right innominate bones that can alter pelvic tilt and rotation. This article puts forth a theory suggesting that acetabular retroversion may be produced by sacroiliac joint dysfunction.
    Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 12/2013; DOI:10.3109/09593985.2013.867558
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Traumatic posterior hip dislocation in adults is generally understood to be the result of a high-energy trauma. Aside from reduced femoral antetorsion, morphologic risk factors for dislocation are unknown. We previously noticed that some hips with traumatic posterior dislocations had evidence of morphologic features of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), therefore, we sought to evaluate that possibility more formally. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether hips with a traumatic posterior hip dislocation present with (1) a cam-type deformity and/or (2) a retroverted acetabulum. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the morphologic features of 53 consecutive hips (53 patients) after traumatic posterior hip dislocation with 85 normal hips (44 patients) based on AP pelvic and crosstable axial radiographs. We measured the axial and the lateral alpha angle for detection of a cam deformity and the crossover sign, ischial spine sign, posterior wall sign, retroversion index, and ratio of anterior to posterior acetabular coverage to describe the acetabular orientation. RESULTS: Hips with traumatic posterior traumatic dislocation were more likely to have cam deformities than were normal hips, in that the hips with dislocation had increased axial and lateral alpha angles. Hips with posterior dislocation also were more likely to be retroverted; dislocated hips had a higher prevalence of a positive crossover sign, ischial spine sign, and posterior wall sign, and they had a higher retroversion index and increased ratio of anterior to posterior acetabular coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Hips with posterior traumatic dislocation typically present with morphologic features of anterior FAI, including a cam-type deformity and retroverted acetabulum. An explanation for these findings could be that the early interaction between the aspherical femoral head and the prominent acetabular rim acts as a fulcrum, perhaps making these hips more susceptible to traumatic dislocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 02/2013; 471(6). DOI:10.1007/s11999-013-2863-4 · 2.88 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
30 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014