Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 113–122 | Cite as

A new tilt on pelvic radiographs: a pilot study

  • P. J. Richards
  • J. M. Pattison
  • J. Belcher
  • R. W. DeCann
  • Suzanne Anderson
  • C. Wynn-Jones
Review Article

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate pelvic tilt on commonly performed measurements on radiography in primary protrusio acetabuli and developmental dysplasia of the hip.

Materials and methods

A dry assembled pelvis and spine skeleton was positioned in an isocentric skull unit and films exposed with increasing degrees of angulation of pelvic tilt. The films were then read by two independent readers for seven different measurements used to evaluate the hips and acetabular: acetabular line to ilioischial line, teardrop appearance, intercristal/intertuberous ratio, co-ordinates of femoral head, centre edge angle, acetabular depth/width ratio and acetabular angle.

Results

There was so much variation in the protrusio results that no formal recommendation of any standard radiographic test can be given. Only the inter tuberous distance is not effected by pelvic tilt. The acetabular angles for developmental dysplasia of the hip showed the most potential with pelvic tilt below 15°.

Conclusion

As pelvic tilt increases, measurements used in protusio become unreliable, and computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging are probably going to be more accurate as one can directly visualise pelvic intrusion. We recommend a lateral view to assess the degree of pelvic tilt in patients with protrusion to ensure these measurements are valid.

Keywords

Pelvic tilt Protrusio acetabuli Iliosischial line Hip dysplasia Centre edge angle 

References

  1. 1.
    Resnick D, Niwayama G. Diagnosis of bone and joint disorders. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1988. p. 3582–3583.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shore A, Macauley D, Ansell BM. Idiopathic protrusio acetabuli in juveniles. Rheumatol Rehabil 1981; 20: 1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Arcy K, Ansell BM, Bywaters EGL. A family with primary protrusio acetabuli. Ann Rheum Dis 1978; 37: 53–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedenberg ZB. Protrusio acetabuli in childhood. J Bone Jt Surg 1963; 45A (2): 373–378.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friedenberg ZB. Protrusio acetabuli. Am J Surg 1953; 85: 764–770.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilmour J. Adolescent deformities of the acetabulum—an investigation into the nature of protrusio. Br J Surg 1938; 26: 670–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacDonald D. Primary protrusio acetabui—report of an affected family. J Bone Jt Surg 1971; 53B: 30–36.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gusis SE, Babini JC, Garay SM, Garcia Morteo O, Maldonado Cocco JA. Evaluation of the measurement methods for protrusio acetabuli in normal children. Skelet Radiol 1990; 19: 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gates HS III, Poletti SC, Callaghan JJ, McCollum DE. Radiographic measurements in protrusio acetabuli. J Arthroplast 1989; 4 (4): 347–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhlman JE, Scott WW, Fishman EK, Pyeritz RE, Siegelman SS. Acetabular protrusion in Marfan’s syndrome. Radiology 1987; 164: 415–417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wenger DR, Ditkoff TJ, Herring JA, Mauldin DM. Protrusio acetabuli in Marfan’s syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980; 147: 134–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Armbuster TG, Guerra J Jr, Resnick D, Goergen TG, Feingold ML, Niwayama G, Danzig LA. The adult hip: an anatomic study. Radiology 1978; 128: 1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hubbard MJS. The measurement of progression in protrusion acetabuli. Am J Roentgenol 1969; 106: 506–508.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alexander CA. The aetiology of primary protrusion acetabuli. Br J Radiol 1965; 38: 567–580.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koehler A. The borderlands of the normal and early pathological in the skiagram (translated from 1st edition by A Turnbull). London: Ballieve, Tindall & Cox; 1928.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharp IK. Acetabular dysplasia. J Bone Jt Surg 1961; 43B: 268–272.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hooper JC, Wyn-Jones E. Primary protrusion of the acetabulum. J Bone Jt Surg 1971; 53B: 23–29.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodman SB, Adler SJ, Fyhrie DP, Schurman DJ. The acetabular teardrop and its relevance to acetabular migration. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 236: 199–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ilchmann T, Franzen H, Mjöberg B, Wingstrand H. Measurement accuracy in acetabular cup migration. A comparison of four radiologic methods versus roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplast 1992; 7 (2): 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tyler T, Zook L, Brittis D, Gleim G. A new pelvis tilt detection device: roentgenographic validation and application to assessment of hip motion in professional ice hockey players. JOSPT 1996;24 (5): 303–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swallow RA, Naglar E, Roebuck EJ, Whitley AS. Clark’s positioning in radiograp1hy. 11th ed. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1986. p. 134–135.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Warwich R, Williams P. Grays anatomy. 39rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. p. 1430.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sinnatamby CS. Last’s anatomy. 10th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone; 2003. p. 282.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Overgaard K. Otto’s disease and other forms of protrusio acetabuli. Acta Radiol 1935; 16: 390–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD, Ranawat CS. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. J Bone Jt Surg 1985; 67A: 1074–1085.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint—with special reference to the complications of osteoarthritis. Acta Chirgica Scandinavica 1939; 58 (Suppl): 1–135.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heyman CH, Herndon CH. Legg–Perthes disease. J Bone Jt Surg 1950; 32A: 767–778.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murphy SB, Ganz R, Muller ME. The prognosis of untreated dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg 1995; 77: A985–A989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Golding FC. Protrusi acetabui (central luxation). Br J Surg 1934; 22: 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tannast M, Murphy SB, Langlotz F, Anderson SE, Siebenrock KA. Estimation of pelvic tilt on anteroposterior X-rays—a comparison of six parameters. Skelet Radiol 2006; 35: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Anderson N, Humphries N, Wells JE. Measurement error in computed tomography pelvimetry. Australas Radiol 2005; 49 (2): 104–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Richards
    • 1
  • J. M. Pattison
    • 2
  • J. Belcher
    • 4
  • R. W. DeCann
    • 3
  • Suzanne Anderson
    • 5
  • C. Wynn-Jones
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyNorth Staffordshire Royal InfirmaryStoke-on-TrentUK
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospital of North StaffordshireStoke on TrentUK
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyIMECSMarket DraytonUK
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsKeele UniversityKeeleUK
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity Hospital of North StaffordshireStoke on TrentUK

Personalised recommendations