Subscribe to RSS
Pelvic Bone Deformity and Its Correlation with Acetabular Center-edge Angle[*]Article in several languages: português | English
30 November 2018
22 January 2019
28 January 2020 (online)
Objective The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the pelvic bone deformities and its correlation with the acetabular center-edge (CE) angle.
Methods Between August 2014 and April 2015, we prospectively evaluated patients aged between 20 and 60 years old. The exclusion criteria were: metabolic disease, previous hip or spine surgery, radiograph showing hip arthrosis ≥ Tönnis two, severe hip dysplasia, global acetabular overcoverage, acetabular crossover sign, hip deformities from slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) or Leg-Perthes-Calveé, and bad quality radiographs. At anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiographs, we have evaluated: the CE angle, the acetabular index (IA), the acetabular crossover sign, the vertical and horizontal superior and inferior pelvic axis (H1: Horizontal line 1, superior pelvic axis; H2: Horizontal line 2, superior pelvic axis; V1: Vertical line, superior pelvic axis; HR: Horizontal line, inferior pelvic axis; VR: Vertical line, inferior pelvic axis). The superior and inferior pelvic axis were considered asymmetric when there was a difference ≥ 5 mm between both sides. Patients were divided into two groups: control and group 1.
Results A total of 228 patients (456 hips) were evaluated in the period. According to the established criteria, 93 patients were included. The mean age was 39.9 years old (20 to 60 years old, standard deviation [SD] = 10,5), and the mean CE angle in the right hip was 31.5° (20 o to 40°), and in the left 32.3° (20 o to 40°). The control group had 38 patients, with asymmetric H1 in 4 cases (10.5%), H2 in 5 (13.1%), V1 in 7 (18.4%), HR in 5 (13.1%) and VR in 1 (2.63%). Group 1 had 55 patients, with asymmetric H1 in 24 cases (43.6%), H2 in 50 (90.9%), V1 in 28 (50.9%), HR in 16 (29.09%) and VR in 8 (14.5%). Comparing both groups, there was statistical significance for H1, H2 and V1 asymmetry (p < 0.001).
Conclusion In the present paper, we observed the correlation between variation in the acetabular CE angle and asymmetry of the superior hemipelvis. The present authors believe that a better understanding of the pelvic morphologic alterations allows a greater facility in the diagnosis of hip articular deformities.
* Study conducted at the Hip Group of the Hospital Ortopédico de Passo Fundo, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil.
- 1 Gosvig KK, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Palm H, Troelsen A. Prevalence of malformations of the hip joint and their relationship to sex, groin pain, and risk of osteoarthritis: a population-based survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (05) 1162-1169
- 2 Agricola R, Heijboer MP, Roze RH. , et al. Pincer deformity does not lead to osteoarthritis of the hip whereas acetabular dysplasia does: acetabular coverage and development of osteoarthritis in a nationwide prospective cohort study (CHECK). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21 (10) 1514-1521
- 3 Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (02) 281-288
- 4 Cooperman D. What is the evidence to support acetabular dysplasia as a cause of osteoarthritis?. J Pediatr Orthop 2013; 33 (Suppl. 01) S2-S7
- 5 Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188 (06) 1540-1552
- 6 Dora C, Leunig M, Beck M, Simovitch R, Ganz R. Acetabular dome retroversion: radiological appearance, incidence and relevance. Hip Int 2006; 16 (03) 215-222
- 7 Jamali AA, Mladenov K, Meyer DC. , et al. Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs to assess acetabular retroversion: high validity of the “cross-over-sign”. J Orthop Res 2007; 25 (06) 758-765
- 8 Murphy RJ, Subhawong TK, Chhabra A, Carrino JA, Armand M, Hungerford M. A quantitative method to assess focal acetabular overcoverage resulting from pincer deformity using CT data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (10) 2846-2854
- 9 Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S. Hip dysplasia: a significant risk factor for the development of hip osteoarthritis. A cross-sectional survey. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005; 44 (02) 211-218
- 10 Albiñana J, Morcuende JA, Delgado E, Weinstein SL. Radiologic pelvic asymmetry in unilateral late-diagnosed developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop 1995; 15 (06) 753-762
- 11 Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaulé PE. , et al. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (Suppl. 04) 47-66
- 12 Kumeta H, Funayama K, Miyagi S. , et al. Inward wing ilium of adult hip dysplasia a characteristic cross sectional pelvic anatomy visualized by CT. Rinsho Seikeigeka. 1986; 21 (01) 67-75
- 13 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 (06) 1735-1742
- 14 Suzuki S. Deformity of the pelvis in developmental dysplasia of the hip: three-dimensional evaluation by means of magnetic resonance image. J Pediatr Orthop 1995; 15 (06) 812-816
- 15 Kalberer F, Sierra RJ, Madan SS, Ganz R, Leunig M. Ischial spine projection into the pelvis : a new sign for acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466 (03) 677-683
- 16 Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Søballe K, Gebuhr P, Lund B. Hip dysplasia and osteoarthrosis: a survey of 4151 subjects from the Osteoarthrosis Substudy of the Copenhagen City Heart Study. Acta Orthop 2005; 76 (02) 149-158