Skip to main content
Log in

Analysis of acetabular version in the native hip: comparison between 2D axial CT and 3D CT measurements

Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare two-dimensional (2D) axial with three-dimensional (3D) computerized tomography (CT) measurements of acetabular version in native hips.

Materials and methods

CT scans of 34 hips in 17 consecutive patients being investigated for femoroacetabular impingement were analyzed. Acetabular version was measured using 2D CT at two different axial levels, one cranial (slice 2) and the other at the equator (slice 3). The measurements were repeated after correction for pelvic tilt. The results were compared to the measurements of anatomical version obtained using a 3D CT method that automatically corrects for pelvic tilt.

Results

The mean acetabular version using the 3D CT method was 15.7° (SD 6.9°). The mean version using slice 2 was 9.3° (SD 6.5°) before correction for pelvic tilt and 15.7° (SD 8.0°) after the correction. The mean version using slice 3 was 16.4° (SD 4.2°) before tilt correction and 19.0° (SD 5.0°) after the correction. In relation to the 3D method, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.58 for the uncorrected and 0.93 for the corrected slice 2 method. For the uncorrected and corrected slice 3 methods, the ICC was 0.64 and 0.89, respectively.

Conclusions

The 2D axial methods produced variable results. The results that correlated best with the 3D method were those of the cranial slice (slice 2) after correction for pelvic tilt. Interpretation of 2D axial CT measurements of acetabular version should be done with caution. The level at which the measurement is done and the presence of pelvic tilt appear to be significant factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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;87–7:1012–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ito K, Minka 2nd MA, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. A MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83-2:171–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Notzli 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 of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84–4:556–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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-A-2:278–86.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81-2:281–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Murphy SB, Kijewski PK, Millis MB, Harless A. Acetabular dysplasia in the adolescent and young adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;261:214–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75–2:228–32.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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;90–11:1428–34.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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;91–8:1031–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kim SS, Frick SL, Wenger DR. Anteversion of the acetabulum in developmental dysplasia of the hip: analysis with computed tomography. J Pediatr Orthop. 1999;19–4:438–42.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Terver S. Apropos of: "Acetabulum anteversion in congenital luxation of the hip". Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1994;80–4:356–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Anda S, Terjesen T, Kvistad KA. Computed tomography measurements of the acetabulum in adult dysplastic hips: which level is appropriate? Skeletal Radiol. 1991;20–4:267–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Anda S, Svenningsen S, Grontvedt T, Benum P. Pelvic inclination and spatial orientation of the acetabulum. A radiographic, computed tomographic and clinical investigation. Acta Radiol. 1990;31–4:389–94.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Li PL, Ganz R. Morphologic features of congenital acetabular dysplasia: one in six is retroverted. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:245–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park MS, Chung CY, Lee SH, Cho TJ, Yoo WJ, Choi IH. Two-dimensional computed tomographic measurement of acetabulum–reliability, validity, and limitation. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28–8:812–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Robin Richards, PhD for his support with the software.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wael Dandachli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dandachli, W., Ul Islam, S., Tippett, R. et al. Analysis of acetabular version in the native hip: comparison between 2D axial CT and 3D CT measurements. Skeletal Radiol 40, 877–883 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-1065-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-1065-3

Keywords

Navigation