Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of acetabular version angle measurements between prone and reformatted supine computed tomography images

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kang AC, Gooding AJ, Coates MH, Goh TD, Armour P, Rietveld J. Computed tomography assessment of hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(6):1160–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(12):1747–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ezoe M, Naito M, Inoue T. The prevalence of acetabular retroversion among various disorders of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(2):372–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Siebenrock KA, Schoeniger R, Ganz R. Anterior femoro-acetabular impingement due to acetabular retroversion. Treatment with periacetabular osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(2):278–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1540–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(2):281–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;407:241–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stem ES, O’Connor MI, Kransdorf MJ, Crook J. Computed tomography analysis of acetabular anteversion and abduction. Skeletal Radiol. 2006;35(6):385–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dandachli W, Ul Islam S, Tippett R, Hall-Craggs MA, Witt JD. Analysis of acetabular version in the native hip: comparison between 2D axial CT and 3D CT measurements. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(7):877–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Maruyama M, Feinberg JR, Capello WN, D’Antonio JA. The Frank Stinchfield Award: morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:52–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim SS, Frick SL, Wenger DR. Anteversion of the acetabulum in developmental dysplasia of the hip: analysis with computed tomography. J Pediatr Orthop. 1999;19(4):438–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Anda S, Terjesen T, Kvistad KA. Computed tomography measurements of the acetabulum in adult dysplastic hips: which level is appropriate? Skeletal Radiol. 1991;20(4):267–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Visser JD, Jonkers A, Hillen B. Hip joint measurements with computerized tomography. J Pediatr Orthop. 1982;2(2):143–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abel MF, Sutherland DH, Wenger DR, Mubarak SJ. Evaluation of CT scans and 3-D reformatted images for quantitative assessment of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994;14(1):48–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anda S, Svenningsen S, Grontvedt T, Benum P. Pelvic inclination and spatial orientation of the acetabulum. A radiographic, computed tomographic and clinical investigation. Acta Radiol. 1990;31(4):389–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dandachli W, Kannan V, Richards R, Shah Z, Hall-Craggs M, Witt J. Analysis of cover of the femoral head in normal and dysplastic hips: new CT-based technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(11):1428–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dandachli W, Islam SU, Liu M, Richards R, Hall-Craggs M, Witt J. Three-dimensional CT analysis to determine acetabular retroversion and the implications for the management of femoro-acetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(8):1031–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Park MS, Chung CY, Lee SH, Cho TJ, Yoo WJ, Choi IH. Two-dimensional computed tomographic measurement of acetabulum—reliability, validity, and limitation. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28(8):812–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Tina Xu for assistance rendered in statistical analysis of the study data.

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Changi General Hospital, 2 Simei Street 3, Singapore, 529889, Singapore

    Le Roy Chong

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    Chow Wei Too

Authors
  1. Le Roy Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chow Wei Too
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Le Roy Chong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chong, L.R., Too, C.W. Comparison of acetabular version angle measurements between prone and reformatted supine computed tomography images. Skeletal Radiol 43, 289–295 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1781-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1781-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation