Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Skeletal Radiology 2/2009

01-02-2009 | Scientific Article

Acetabulum protrusio and center edge angle: new MR-imaging measurement criteria—a correlative study with measurement derived from conventional radiography

Authors: Lina Chen, Mayura Boonthathip, Fabiano Cardoso, Paul Clopton, Donald Resnick

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 2/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The goal of this study was to identify a method of measurement for acetabulum protrusio and center edge angle (CEA) using MR imaging of the pelvis that correlated with classic methods using radiographic landmarks.

Materials and methods

MR images and radiographs of the pelvis in 67 patients (132 hips) were used to identify reliable MR-imaging methods for measuring protrusio acetabulum and CEA that correlated strongly with established radiographic measurements. Protrusio acetabulum was determined using the radiographic criterion that the acetabular line projects medial to the ilioischial line by 3 mm or more in men and 6 mm or more in women. Pearson correlation factor was used to determine inter-observer variability and those methods that demonstrated the strongest correlation. The mean and standard deviation of MR-imaging and radiographic measurements for both the normal and protrusio hips were established.

Results

Several MR methods correlated strongly with radiographic measurements. The preferred method employed axial MR images at the level of the ischial spine with measurement of the distance between the medial most point of the acetabular fossa and a line perpendicular to the horizontal axis that passed through the lateral margin of the posterior inner pelvic wall. The Pearson’s correlation factor between radiographic and MR measurements using this method was 0.84, and inter-observer correlation was 0.80. There were 126 hips in 63 patients (17 female and 44 male) that did not meet the radiographic criteria for protrusio acetabula. In this group of normal hips, the mean and standard deviation of radiographic measurements were 1.9 and 2.8 mm in male patients and −0.5 and 1.7 mm in female patients, and the mean and standard deviation for the preferred MR method was 1.3 and 2.5 mm in male patients and −0.8 and 1.9 mm in female patients. A total of six hips in four patients (two female and two male) met the radiographic criteria for protrusio acetabula. In this group of patients, the mean and standard deviation of radiographic measurements were −3.7 and 1 mm in male patients and −5.4 and 0.9 mm in female patients, and the mean and standard deviation for the preferred MR method was −4.1 and 0.4 mm in male patients and −6.5 and 0.3 mm in female patients. Our study also showed that the CEA was best measured using anterior to middle coronal MR images. Posterior coronal MR-imaging measurements correlated poorly with radiographic measurements.

Conclusion

MR imaging can be used to assess acetabular morphology and measure acetabulum protrusio.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hughes RA, Tempos K, Ansell BM. A review of the diagnoses of hip pain presentation in the adolescent. B J Rheumat 1988; 27: 450–453.CrossRef Hughes RA, Tempos K, Ansell BM. A review of the diagnoses of hip pain presentation in the adolescent. B J Rheumat 1988; 27: 450–453.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Javad P, Leunig M, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15(9): 561–570. Javad P, Leunig M, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15(9): 561–570.
3.
go back to reference Pomeranz MM. Intrapelvic protrusion of the acetabulum (otto pelvis). J Bone Joint Surg Am 1932; 14: 663–686. Pomeranz MM. Intrapelvic protrusion of the acetabulum (otto pelvis). J Bone Joint Surg Am 1932; 14: 663–686.
4.
go back to reference Van De Velde S, Fillman R, Yandow S. The aetiology of protrusion acetabuli—literature review from 1824 to 2006. Acta Orthop Belg 2006; 72: 524–529. Van De Velde S, Fillman R, Yandow S. The aetiology of protrusion acetabuli—literature review from 1824 to 2006. Acta Orthop Belg 2006; 72: 524–529.
5.
go back to reference McBride MT, Muldoon MP, Santore RF. Protrusio acetabuli: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2001; 9(2): 79–88.PubMed McBride MT, Muldoon MP, Santore RF. Protrusio acetabuli: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2001; 9(2): 79–88.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Armbuster TG, Guerra J, Resnick D, et al. The adult hip: an anatomic study. Radiology 1978; 128: 1–10.PubMed Armbuster TG, Guerra J, Resnick D, et al. The adult hip: an anatomic study. Radiology 1978; 128: 1–10.PubMed
8.
go back to reference 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 Jt Surg Br 2002; 84B(4): 556–560.CrossRef 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 Jt Surg Br 2002; 84B(4): 556–560.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. AJR 2007; 188: 1540–1522.PubMedCrossRef Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. AJR 2007; 188: 1540–1522.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Bredella MA, Stoller DW. MR imaging of femoroacetabular impingement. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2005; 13(4): 653–664.PubMedCrossRef Bredella MA, Stoller DW. MR imaging of femoroacetabular impingement. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2005; 13(4): 653–664.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Acetabulum protrusio and center edge angle: new MR-imaging measurement criteria—a correlative study with measurement derived from conventional radiography
Authors
Lina Chen
Mayura Boonthathip
Fabiano Cardoso
Paul Clopton
Donald Resnick
Publication date
01-02-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Skeletal Radiology / Issue 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-008-0583-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2009

Skeletal Radiology 2/2009 Go to the issue