Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 11, pp 1411–1418 | Cite as

Femoral anteversion is correlated with acetabular version and coverage in Asian women with anterior and global deficient subgroups of hip dysplasia: a CT study

  • Mio Akiyama
  • Yasuharu Nakashima
  • Masanori Fujii
  • Taishi Sato
  • Takuaki Yamamoto
  • Taro Mawatari
  • Goro Motomura
  • Shuichi Matsuda
  • Yukihide Iwamoto
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

Morphological correlation between the acetabulum and femur at the hip joint is still controversial. We tested the hypothesis that femoral anteversion correlates with acetabular version and coverage in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).

Materials and methods

Using pelvic computed tomography (CT) images of 79 hips in 49 Asian women with DDH and 49 normal hips, we measured femoral anteversion, the axial and vertical acetabular version and the acetabular sector angle (ASA) to demarcate femoral head coverage. Depending on the location of the acetabular bone defect, dysplastic hips were divided into three subgroups: the anterior, global and posterior deficiency groups. We performed a comparative analysis between dysplastic and normal hips using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and a relative analysis between femoral anteversion and acetabular measurements in dysplastic hips using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Results

The amount of femoral anteversion in dysplastic hips was greater and more variable than in normal hips (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0277 respectively). Femoral anteversion in dysplastic hips correlated significantly with acetabular anteversion in the groups with anterior and global deficiency subgroups (p < 0.05, r = 0.2990, p < 0.05, r = 0.451 respectively), but not with the posterior deficiency subgroup. Femoral anteversion also correlated with vertical acetabular version. When acetabular coverage was examined, significant correlations were noted between femoral anteversion and anterior and superior coverage, but not with posterior coverage. These correlations were not observed in normal hips.

Conclusions

Our results showed significantly greater and more variable femoral anteversion in DDH, and a significant correlation between femoral anteversion and acetabular version and coverage in DDH with anterior and global acetabular bone deficiency.

Keywords

Developmental dysplasia of the hip Three-dimensional morphology Femoral anteversion Acetabular version Acetabular coverage Computed tomography 

Notes

Acknowledgement

None of the authors received financial support for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobsen S, Romer L, Soballe K. Degeneration in dysplastic hips. A computer tomography study. Skeletal Radiol 2005; 34:778–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noble PC, Kamaric E, Sugano N, Matsubara M, Harada Y, Ohzono K, Paravic V. Three-dimensional shape of the dysplastic femur: implications for THR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:27–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murphy SB, Ganz R, Muller ME. The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;7:985–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klaue K, Durnin CW, Ganz R. The acetabular rim syndrome. A clinical presentation of dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;3:423–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nakamura S, Ninomiya S, Nakamura T. Primary osteoarthritis of the hip joint in Japan. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;241:190–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Solomon L. Patterns of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1976;58(2):176–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganz R, Klaue K, Vinh TS, Mast JW. A new periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of hip dysplasias. Technique and preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;232:26–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ninomiya S, Tagawa H. Rotational acetabular osteotomy for the dysplastic hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(3):430–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jamali AA, Mladenov K, Meyer DC, Martinez A, Beck M, Ganz R, Leunig M. Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs to assess acetabular retroversion: high validity of the "cross-over-sign". J Orthop Res. 2007;25:758–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiyama T, Naito M, Shiramizu K, Shinoda T. Postoperative acetabular retroversion causes posterior osteoarthritis of the hip. Int Orthop. 2009;33(3):625–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peters CL, Erickson JA, Hines JL. Early results of the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy: the learning curve at an academic medical center. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(9):1920–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peters CL, Erickson JA, Anderson L, Anderson AA, Weiss J. Hip-preserving surgery: understanding complex pathomorphology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91 Suppl 6:42–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnston CE, Wenger DR, Roberts JM, Burke SW, Roach JW. Acetabular coverage: three-dimensional anatomy and radiographic evaluation. J Pediatr Orthop. 1986;6(5):548–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Myers SR, Eijer H, Ganz R. Anterior femoroacetabular impingement after periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;363:93–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steppacher SD, Tannast M, Ganz R, Siebenrock KA. Mean 20-year followup of Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(7):1633–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anda S, Terjesen T, Kvistad KA, Svenningsen S. Acetabular angles and femoral anteversion in dysplastic hips in adults: CT investigation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1991;1:115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reikeras O, Bjerkreim I, Kolbenstvedt A. Anteversion of the acetabulum and femoral neck in normals and in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Acta Orthop Scand. 1983;54(1):18–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bargar WL, Jamali AA, Nejad AH. Femoral anteversion in THA and its lack of correlation with native acetabular anteversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):527–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ito H, Matsuno T, Hirayama T, Tanino H, Yamanaka Y, Minami A. Three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of non-osteoarthritic adult acetabular dysplasia. Skeletal Radiol. 2009;2:131–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murphy SB, Kijewski PK, Millis MB, Harless A. Acetabular dysplasia in the adolescent and young adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;261:214–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haddad FS, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP, Janzen DL, Munk PL. CT evaluation of periacetabular osteotomies. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82(4):526–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamura S, Yorikawa J, Otsuka K, Takeshita K, Harasawa A, Matsushita T. Evaluation of acetabular dysplasia using a top view of the hip on three-dimensional CT. J Orthop Sci. 2000;5(6):533–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fujii M, Nakashima Y, Sato T, Akiyama M, Iwamoto Y. Pelvic deformity influences acetabular version and coverage in hip dysplasia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(6):1735–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaule PE, Kim YJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, et al. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90 Suppl 4:47–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint. With special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand. 1939;83 Suppl 58:1–135.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tönnis D. Congenital dysplasia and dislocation of the hip in children and adults. Berlin: Springer; 1987. p. 165–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Traina F, De Clerico M, Biondi F, Pilla F, Tassinari E, Toni A. Sex differences in hip morphology: is stem modularity effective for total hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009:121–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS. Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(1):15–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McKibbin B. Anatomical factors in the stability of the hip joint in the newborn. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1970;52(1):148–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hapa O, Yuksel HY, Muratli HH, Aksahin E, Gulcek S, Celebi L, et al. Axial plane coverage and torsion measurements in primary osteoarthritis of the hip with good frontal plane coverage and spherical femoral head. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;10:1305–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mizu-Uchi H, Matsuda S, Miura H, Higaki H, Okazaki K, Iwamoto Y. Three-dimensional analysis of computed tomography-based navigation system for total knee arthroplasty: The accuracy of computed tomography-based navigation system. J Arthroplasty. 2009;7:1103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fujii M, Nakashima Y, Yamamoto T, Mawatari T, Motomura G, Matsushita A, et al. Acetabular retroversion in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;4:895–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;2:217–20.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E. A comparison of alternative methods of measuring femoral anteversion. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22(4):610–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yoshino N, Takai S, Watanabe Y, Fujiwara H, Ohshima Y, Hirasawa Y. Primary total knee arthroplasty for supracondylar/condylar femoral fracture in osteoarthritic knees. J Arthroplasty. 2001;4:471–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shands AR Jr, Steele MK. Torsion of the femur; a follow-up report on the use of the dunlap method for its determination. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958;4:803–16.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Terjesen T, Benum P, Anda S, Svenningsen S. Increased femoral anteversion and osteoarthritis of the hip joint. Acta Orthop Scand. 1982;4:571–5.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sankar WN, Neubuerge CO, Moseley CF. Femoral anteversion in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009;29(8):885–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Visser JD, Jonkers A, Hillen B. Hip joint measurements with computerized tomography. J Pediatr Orthop. 1982;2(2):143–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fujii M. Effect of intra-articular lesions on the outcome of periacetabular osteotomy in patients with symptomatic hip dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93-B:1449–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Klaue K, Wallin A, Ganz R. CT evaluation of coverage and congruency of the hip prior to osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;232:15–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Azuma H, Taneda H, Igarashi H, Fukuoka M. Preoperative and postoperative assessment of rotational acetabular osteotomy for dysplastic hips in children by three-dimensional surface reconstruction computed tomography imaging. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10:33–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jia J, Li L, Zhang L, Zhao Q, Liu X.. Three dimensional-CT evaluation of femoral neck anteversion, acetabular anteversion and combined anteversion in unilateral DDH in an early walking age group. Int Orthop. 2012;36:119–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mio Akiyama
    • 1
  • Yasuharu Nakashima
    • 1
  • Masanori Fujii
    • 1
  • Taishi Sato
    • 1
  • Takuaki Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Taro Mawatari
    • 1
  • Goro Motomura
    • 1
  • Shuichi Matsuda
    • 1
  • Yukihide Iwamoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations