A Quantitative Method to Assess Focal Acetabular Overcoverage Resulting From Pincer Deformity Using CT Data

  • Ryan J. Murphy
  • Ty K. Subhawong
  • Avneesh Chhabra
  • John A. Carrino
  • Mehran Armand
  • Marc Hungerford
Basic Research



Current assessment techniques for focal acetabular overcoverage are neither consistent nor quantitatively accurate.


We propose: (1) a method to precisely quantify the amount of focal acetabular overcoverage in a patient’s pincer deformity based on CT data; (2) to evaluate the consistency of this method; and (3) to compare the method with conventional radiographic assessments.


We developed a method to assess focal acetabular overcoverage using points selected from CT scans along the acetabular rim after realigning the pelvis into a neutral position. Using four resampled and segmented pelvic CT scans of cadaveric specimens with virtually induced impingement, two observers independently tested the algorithm’s consistency. Our algorithm assessed the amount of focal acetabular overcoverage using CT data and projected data from reconstructed radiographs.


(1) We successfully showed the feasibility of the software to produce consistent, quantitative measurements. (2) Testing showed the average difference between observers in aligning the pelvis was 0.42°, indicative of a consistent approach. (3) Differences between measurements on three-dimensional (3-D) CT and simulated radiographs were significant.


The proposed method represents a new avenue in consistently quantifying focal acetabular overcoverage using CT models while correcting for pelvic tilt and rotation. Our analysis confirms AP hip radiograph simulations overestimate the amount of overhanging acetabular rim in a pincer deformity.

Clinical Relevance

This technique has potential to improve preoperative diagnostic accuracy and enhance surgical planning for correction of a pincer deformity resulting from focal acetabular overcoverage.


  1. 1.
    Armiger RS, Armand M, Lepistö J, Minhas D, Tallroth K, Mears SC, Waites MD, Taylor RH. Evaluation of a computerized measurement technique for joint alignment before and during periacetabular osteotomy. Comput Aided Surg. 2007;12:215–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1012–1018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaule PE, Kim YJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Leunig M, Schoenecker PL, Millis MB. 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
  4. 4.
    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;91:1031–1036.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;90:1428–1434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Greef M, Crezee J, van Eijk JC, Pool R, Bel A. Accelerated ray tracing for radiotherapy dose calculations on a GPU. Med Phys. 2009;36:4095–4102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Notzli H, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:112–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goitein M, Abrams M, Rowell D, Pollari H, Wiles J. Multi-dimensional treatment planning: II. Beam’s eye-view, back projection, and projection through CT sections. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983;9:789–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 ‘crossover-sign.’ J Orthop Res. 2007;25:758–765.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Richards PJ, Pattison JM, Belcher J, Decann RW, Anderson S, Wynn-Jones C. A new tilt on pelvic radiographs: a pilot study. Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38:113–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sadowsky O, Cohen JD, Taylor RH. Projected tetrahedra revisited: a barycentric formulation applied to digital radiograph reconstruction using higher-order attenuation functions. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2006;12:461–473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherouse GW, Novins K, Chaney EL. Computation of digitally reconstructed radiographs for use in radiotherapy treatment design. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;18:651–658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shirley P, Tuchman A. A polygonal approximation to direct scalar volume rendering. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph. 1990;24:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siddon RL. Fast calculation of the exact radiological path for a three-dimensional CT array. Med Phys. 1985;12:252–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Siebenrock KA, Schoeniger R, Ganz R. Anterior femoro-acetabular impingement due to acetabular retroversion: treatment with periacetabular osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:278–286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spoerk J, Bergmann H, Wanschitz F, Dong S, Birkfellner W. Fast DRR splat rendering using common consumer graphics hardware. Med Phys. 2007;34:4302–4308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tannast M, Kubiak-Langer M, Langlotz F, Puls M, Murphy SB, Siebenrock KA. Noninvasive three-dimensional assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res. 2007;25:122–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tannast M, Mistry S, Steppacher SD, Reichenbach S, Langlotz F, Siebenrock KA, Zheng G. Radiographic analysis of femoroacetabular impingement with Hip2Norm: reliable and validated. J Orthop Res. 2008;9:1199–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tannast M, Murphy SB, Langlotz F, Anderson SE, Siebenrock KA. Estimation of pelvic tilt on anteroposterior X-rays: a comparison of six parameters. Skeletal Radiol. 2006;35:149–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tannast M, Zheng G, Anderegg C, Burckhardt K, Langlotz F, Ganz R, Siebenrock KA. Tilt and rotation correction of acetabular version on pelvic radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:182–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan J. Murphy
    • 1
  • Ty K. Subhawong
    • 2
  • Avneesh Chhabra
    • 2
  • John A. Carrino
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mehran Armand
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marc Hungerford
    • 4
  1. 1.Milton S. Eisenhower Research CenterThe Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics LaboratoryLaurelUSA
  2. 2.The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological ScienceThe Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.The Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryThe Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.The Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMercy HospitalBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations