Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

, Volume 467, Issue 3, pp 682–691 | Cite as

Acetabular Morphology: Implications for Joint-preserving Surgery

  • Werner Köhnlein
  • Reinhold Ganz
  • Franco M. Impellizzeri
  • Michael Leunig
Symposium: Femoroacetabular Impingement: Current Status of Diagnosis and Treatment

Abstract

Appropriate anatomic concepts for surgery to treat femoroacetabular impingement require a precise appreciation of the native acetabular anatomy. We therefore determined (1) the spatial acetabular rim profile, (2) the topography of the articular lunate surface, and (3) the 3-D relationships of the acetabular opening plane comparing 66 bony acetabula from 33 pelves in female and male pelves. The acetabular rim profile had a constant and regular wave-like outline without gender differences. Three prominences anterosuperiorly, anteroinferiorly and posteroinferiorly extended just above hemispheric level. Two depressions were below hemispheric level, of 9° at the anterior wall and of 21° along the posterosuperior wall. In 94% of all acetabula, the deepest extent of the articular surface was within 30° of the anterosuperior acetabular sector. In 99% of men and in 91% of women, the depth of the articular surface was at least 55° along almost half of the upper acetabular cup. The articular surface was smaller in women than in men. The acetabular opening plane was orientated in 21° ± 5° for version, 48° ± 4° for inclination and 19° ± 6° for acetabular tilt with no gender differences. We defined tilt as forward rotation of the entire acetabular cup around its central axis; because of interindividual variability of acetabular tilt, descriptions of acetabular lesions during surgery, CT scanning and MRI should be defined and recorded in relation to the acetabular notch. Acetabular tilt and pelvic tilt should be separately identified. We believe this information important for surgeons performing rim trimming in FAI surgery or performing acetabular osteotomies.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Kiril Mladenov, MD, for making the plaster molds; Dr. B. Kaufmann from the Institute of Anthropology in Aesch, Switzerland, for providing access to the skeletal specimens; Alain Junod, PhD, and Bernard Stalder, PhD, for mathematical advice; and Daniel de Menezes, MD, for discussion of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Anda S, Svenningsen S, Dale LG, Benum B. The acetabular sector angle of the adult hip determined by computed tomography. Acta Radiol Diagn. 1986;27:443–447.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anda S, Svenningsen S, Grontved T, Benum B. Pelvic inclination and spatial orientation of the acetabulum: a radiographic, computed tomographic and clinical investigation. Acta Radiol. 1990;31:389–394.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck M, Leunig M, Parvizi J, Boutier V, Wyss D, Ganz R. Anterior femoral impingement: part II. Midterm results of surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:67–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:12–18.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bullough P, Goodfellow J, Greenwald AS, O’Connor J. Incongruent surfaces in the human hip joint. Nature. 1968;217:1290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byers PD, Contepomi A, Farkas TA. A post-mortem study of the hip joint. Ann Rheum Dis. 1970;29:15–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark JM, Freeman MAR, Witham D. The relation of neck orientation to the shape of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty. 1987;2:99–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988: 16–18.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daskalogiannaki ME, Gurtsoyannis NC. Variation in the appearance of the normal sacroiliac joint on pelvic CT. Clin Radiol. 1998;53:742–746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DiGioia A, Hafez MA, Jaramaz B, Levinson TJ, Moody JE. Functional pelvic orientation measured from lateral standing and sitting radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:272–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dora C, Zurbach J, Hersche O, Ganz R. Pathomorphological characteristics of posttraumatic acetabular dysplasia. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:483–489.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eckman K, Hafez MA, Ed F, Jaramaz B, Levison TJ, DiGioia AM 3rd. Accuracy of pelvic flexion measurements from lateral radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;451:154–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eckstein F, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Landgraf J, Adam C, Loehe F, Müller-Gerbl M, Putz R. Quantitative analysis of incongruity, contact areas and cartilage thickness in the human hip joint. Acta Anatomica. 1997;158:192–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Effenberger H, Koebke J, Wilke R, Hautmann J, Witzel U, Imhof M, Richolt J. Acetabular shape and cementless cups. Comparison of osteoarthritic hips and implant design [in German]. Orthopäde. 2004;33:1042–1050.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eijer H, Myers SR, Ganz R. Anterior femoroacetabular impingement after femoral neck fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15:475–481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faflia CP, Prassopoulos PK, Daskalogiannaki ME, Gourtsoyannis NC. Variation in the appearance of the normal sacroiliac joint on pelvic CT. Clin Radiol. 1998;53:742–746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falliner A, Hahne HJ, Hassenpflug J. Sonographic investigation of anatomic specimens of infant hip joints. J Pediatr Orthop Br. 2002;11:192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ganz R, Gill TJ, Gauthier E, Ganz K, Krugel N, Berlemann U. Surgical dislocation of the adult hip: a technique with full access to the femoral head and acetabulum without the risk of avascular necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:1119–1124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ganz R, Klaue K, Vinh TS, Mast JW. A new periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of hip dysplasia: Technique and preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;232:26–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ganz R, Leunig M, Leunig-Ganz K, Harris WH: The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2008;466:264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement-a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:112–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gekeler J. Coxarthrosis with a deep acetabulum (proceedings) [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1978;116:454–459.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giori NJ, Trousdale RT. Acetabular retroversion is associated with osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:263–269.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goodman DA, Feighan JF, Smith AD, Latimer B, Buly RL, Cooperman DR. Subclinical slipped capital femoral epiphysis: relation to osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1489–1497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gu D, Dai K, Wang Y, Hu X, Xi J. Morphologic features of the acetabulum bone joint area [in Chinese]. J Biomed Eng. 2003;20:618–621.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ito K, Leunig M, Ganz R. Histopathologic features of the acetabular labrum in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:262–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ito K, Minka MA 2nd, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R. Femoro-acetabular impingement and the cam effect: an MRI-based quantitative anatomic study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:171–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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;25:758–765.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kalberer F, Sierra RJ, Madan SS, Ganz R, Leunig M. Projection of the ischial spine into the pelvic cavity: a new sign for acetabular retroversion on plain radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:677–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kloen P, Leunig M, Ganz R. Early lesions of the labrum and the acetabular cartilage in osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:66–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lavigne M, Parvizi J, Beck M, Siebenrock K, Ganz R, Leunig M. Anterior femoroacetabular impingement: part I. Techniques of joint preserving surgery. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2004;418:61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lazennec JY, Charlot N, Gorin M, Roger B, Arafat N, Bissery A, Saillant G. Hip spine relationship: a radio-anatomical study for optimization in acetabular cup positioning. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26:136–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lembeck B, Mueller O, Reize P, Wuelker N. Pelvic tilt makes acetabular cup navigation inaccurate. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:517–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lequesne M. Mesure des angles fondamentaux de la hanche radiographique de l’adulte par un rapporteur combine. Rev Rhum. 1963;30:479–485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leunig M, Beck M, Woo A, Dora C, Kerboull M, Ganz R. Acetabular rim degeneration: a constant finding in the aged hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:201–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leunig M, Cassillas MM, Hamlet M, Herrsche O, Nötzli T, Ganz R. Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: early mechanical damage to the acetabular cartilage by a prominent femoral metaphysis. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:370–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leunig M, Podeszwa D, Beck M, Werlen S, Ganz R. Magnetic resonance arthrography of labral disorders in hips with dysplasia and impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:74–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leunig M, Werlen S, Ungersbock A, Ito K, Ganz R. Evaluation of the acetabular labrum by MR arthrography. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:230–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Locher S, Werlen S, Leunig M, Ganz R. Inadequate detectability of early stages of coxarthrosis with conventional roentgen images [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2001;139:70–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maruyama M, Feinberg JR, Capello WN, D’Antonio JA. The Frank Stinchfield Award: Morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:52–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McKibbin B. Anatomical factors in the stability of the hip joint in the newborn. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1970;52:148–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Menschik F. The hip joint as a conchoid shape. J Biomechanics. 1997;30:971–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meunier P, Lefèvre C, Le Saout J, Kerboul B, Riot O, Meriot P, Courtois B, Bellet M. Measurement of anteversion of cotyle. A simple method using a frontal radiograph of the hip [in French]. J Radiol. 1987;68:799–804.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Millis BM, Murphy SB, Poss R: Osteotomies about the hip for the prevention and treatment of osteoarthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:626–647.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Murphy S, Tannast M, Kim Y-J, Buly R, Millis MB: Debridement of the adult hip for femoroacetabular impingement. Indications and preliminary clinical results. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2004;429:178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:228–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Myers SR, Eijer H, Ganz R. Anterior femoral impingement after periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;363:93–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T, Ohzono K, Yoshikawa H. Measurements of pelvic flexion angle using three dimensional computed tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;411:140–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Greenberry WM, Tullos HS: The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1988;235:148–165.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J. The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk for anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:556–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Oberländer W, Kurrat HJ, Breul R. Examination of the extension of the osseus facies lunata. A functional study [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1978;116:675–682.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Philippon MJ, Stubbs AJ, Schenker ML, Maxwell RB, Ganz R, Leunig M. Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: osteoplasty technique and literature review. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:1571–1580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:298–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum: a cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:281–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Santori N, Villar RN. Arthroscopic findings in the initial stages of hip osteoarthritis. Orthopedics. 1999;22:405–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shiino K. Über die Hüftpfanne. Z Morphol Anthropol. 1915;17:325–356.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;407:241–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Siebenrock KA, Schoeniger R, Ganz R. Anterior femoro-acetabular impingement due to acetabular retroversion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:278–286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Siebenrock KA, Schöll E, Lottenbach M, Ganz R. Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;363:9–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Steckel RH. New light on the “dark ages”, the remarkably tall stature of Northern European men during the medieval era. Soc Sci Hist. 2004;28:211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Stein MG, Barmeir E, Levin J, Dubowitz B, Roffman M. The medial acetabular wall: normal measurements in different population groups. Invest Radiol. 1982;17:476–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:794–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric MS: Predicting the position of the femoral head center. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:102–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tague RG. Variations in pelvic size between males and females. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1989;80:59–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Thompson MS, Dawson T, Kuiper JH, Northmore-Ball MD, Tanner KE. Acetabular morphology and resurfacing design. J Biomech. 2000;33:1645–1653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tillmann B. Die Beanspruchung des menschlichen Hüftgelenks. III. Die Form der Facies Lunata. Z Anat Entwicklungsgesch. 1969;128:329–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Vandenbussche E, Saffarini M, Delogé N, Moctezuma JL, Nogler M. Hemispheric cups do not reproduce acetabular rim morphology. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:327–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Vandenbussche E, Saffarini M, Taillieu F, Mutschler C. The asymmetric profile of the acetabulum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:417–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Werner Köhnlein
    • 1
  • Reinhold Ganz
    • 2
  • Franco M. Impellizzeri
    • 3
  • Michael Leunig
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsHôpital Universitaire de GenèveGenève 14Switzerland
  2. 2.University of BerneBerneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of OrthopaedicsSchulthess ClinicZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations