Acetabular Morphology and Spinopelvic Characteristics: What Predominantly Determines Functional Acetabular Version?

Overview

Journal Orthop J Sports Med

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2021 Oct 28

PMID 34708135

Citations 1

Authors

Zachary DeVries

Andrew D Speirs

Saif Salih

Paul E Beaule

Johan Witt

George Grammatopoulos

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In addition to the relative size of the acetabular rim and how the pelvis is positioned in space, the plane in which the acetabular version is calculated also affects its measurement.

Purpose: To determine the relative contribution of pelvic and acetabular characteristics on morphological version (measured relative to the anterior pelvic plane angle [APPA]) and functional version (measured relative to the horizontal table).

Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: Included were 50 acetabular dysplasia patients and 109 asymptomatic controls. Using image analysis software, morphological parameters of the pelvis and acetabulum were determined from 2-dimensional computed topography: pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt angle, sacral slope, APPA, morphological and functional acetabular versions, and subtended angles (measure of acetabular rim prominence relative to the femoral head center) around the acetabular clockface in 30° increments. Correlation and multivariable regression analyses were performed with morphological and functional version as dependent variables and spinopelvic and acetabular parameters as independent variables.

Results: Morphological version was moderately associated with differences between anterior and posterior subtended angles ( = 0.68 [ < .001] and = 0.57 [ < .001] for differences at 165° and 15° and 135° and 45°, respectively). Functional version was moderately associated with pelvic tilt angle ( = 0.56; <.001) and the difference in subtended angles between anterior and posterior rims ( = 0.61 [ < .001] and = 0.50 [ < .001] for differences at 165° and 15° and 135° and 45°, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed a good model for predicting morphological version ( = 0.44; < .01) and functional version ( = 0.58; < .01). Subtended angle difference between 165° and 15° ( = 0.36 [95% CI, 0.24-0.49]; < .001) was most strongly related to morphological version, and pelvic tilt angle ( = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.68]; < .001) was most strongly related to functional version.

Conclusion: Functional acetabular version was influenced most strongly by pelvic tilt angle rather than the relative prominence of the acetabular rims. Before determining surgical management for version abnormalities, it would be prudent to assess pelvic mobility and characteristics in different functional positions. In patients with minimal pelvic tilt change dynamically, corrective osteotomy would be the treatment of choice to improve functional version.

Citing Articles

Spinopelvic challenges in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Grammatopoulos G, Innmann M, Phan P, Bodner R, Meermans G EFORT Open Rev. 2023; 8(5):298-312.

PMID: 37158334 PMC: 10233804. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-23-0049.

References

Larson C, Moreau-Gaudry A, Kelly B, Byrd J, Tonetti J, Lavallee S . Are normal hips being labeled as pathologic? A CT-based method for defining normal acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 473(4):1247-54. PMC: 4353516. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-4055-2. View

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. PMC: 3094603. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1746-1. View

Ike H, Dorr L, Trasolini N, Stefl M, McKnight B, Heckmann N . Spine-Pelvis-Hip Relationship in the Functioning of a Total Hip Replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(18):1606-1615. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.00403. View

Tachibana T, Fujii M, Kitamura K, Nakamura T, Nakashima Y . Does Acetabular Coverage Vary Between the Supine and Standing Positions in Patients with Hip Dysplasia?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019; 477(11):2455-2466. PMC: 6903855. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000898. View

Stem E, OConnor M, Kransdorf M, Crook J . Computed tomography analysis of acetabular anteversion and abduction. Skeletal Radiol. 2006; 35(6):385-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-006-0086-4. View

Tannenbaum E, Kopydlowski N, Smith M, Bedi A, Sekiya J . Gender and racial differences in focal and global acetabular version. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 29(2):373-6. PMC: 4049456. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.015. View

Konishi N, Mieno T . Determination of acetabular coverage of the femoral head with use of a single anteroposterior radiograph. A new computerized technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(9):1318-33. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199309000-00007. View

Roussot M, Salih S, Grammatopoulos G, Witt J . What is the pelvic tilt in acetabular dysplasia and does it change following peri-acetabular osteotomy?. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2021; 7(4):777-785. PMC: 8349581. DOI: 10.1093/jhps/hnab023. View

Marques C, Martin T, Kochman A, Goral A, Lampe F, Breul V . Pelvic Tilt Angle Differences Between Symptom-Free Young Subjects and Elderly Patients Scheduled for THA: The Rationale for Tilt-Adjusted Acetabular Cup Implantation. Open Orthop J. 2018; 12:364-372. PMC: 6142662. DOI: 10.2174/1874325001812010364. View

10.

Chuang C, Liaw M, Wang L, Huang Y, Pong Y, Chen C . Spino-pelvic alignment, balance, and functional disability in patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Rehabil Med. 2018; 50(10):898-907. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2489. View

11.

Hellman M, Haughom B, Brown N, Fillingham Y, Philippon M, Nho S . Femoroacetabular Impingement and Pelvic Incidence: Radiographic Comparison to an Asymptomatic Control. Arthroscopy. 2016; 33(3):545-550. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.08.033. View

12.

Grammatopoulos G, Salih S, Beaule P, Witt J . Spinopelvic Characteristics in Acetabular Retroversion: Does Pelvic Tilt Change After Periacetabular Osteotomy?. Am J Sports Med. 2019; 48(1):181-187. DOI: 10.1177/0363546519887737. View

13.

Ganz R, Leunig M, Leunig-Ganz K, Harris W . The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip: an integrated mechanical concept. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(2):264-72. PMC: 2505145. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-007-0060-z. View

14.

Tannast M, Mistry S, Steppacher S, Reichenbach S, Langlotz F, Siebenrock K . Radiographic analysis of femoroacetabular impingement with Hip2Norm-reliable and validated. J Orthop Res. 2008; 26(9):1199-205. DOI: 10.1002/jor.20653. View

15.

Sautet P, Giorgi H, Chabrand P, Tropiano P, Argenson J, Parratte S . Is anatomic acetabular orientation related to pelvic morphology? CT analysis of 150 healthy pelvises. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017; 104(3):347-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.10.006. View

16.

Clohisy J, Carlisle J, Beaule P, Kim Y, Trousdale R, Sierra R . A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90 Suppl 4:47-66. PMC: 2682767. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00756. View

17.

Cobb J, Logishetty K, Davda K, Iranpour F . Cams and pincer impingement are distinct, not mixed: the acetabular pathomorphology of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(8):2143-51. PMC: 2895857. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1347-z. View

18.

Moon J, Shinn J, Ryu D, Oh S, Shim Y, Yoon S . Pelvic Incidence Can Be Changed not only by Age and Sex, but also by Posture Used during Imaging. Korean J Spine. 2017; 14(3):77-83. PMC: 5642093. DOI: 10.14245/kjs.2017.14.3.77. View

19.

Speirs A, Beaule P, Rakhra K, Schweitzer M, Frei H . Bone density is higher in cam-type femoroacetabular impingement deformities compared to normal subchondral bone. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013; 21(8):1068-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.04.016. View

20.

Tannast M, Hanke M, Zheng G, Steppacher S, Siebenrock K . What are the radiographic reference values for acetabular under- and overcoverage?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 473(4):1234-46. PMC: 4353515. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-4038-3. View