Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 10/2019

01-10-2019 | Computed Tomography | Musculoskeletal

Acetabular coverage differs between standing and supine positions: model-based assessment of low-dose biplanar radiographs and comparison with CT

Authors: Benjamin Fritz, Christoph A. Agten, Franca K. Boldt, Patrick O. Zingg, Christian W. A. Pfirrmann, Reto Sutter

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the feasibility of 2D and 3D acetabular coverage assessments based on low-dose biplanar radiographs (BPR) in comparison with CT, and to demonstrate the influence of weight-bearing position (WBP) on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages.

Methods

Fifty patients (21 females, 29 males) underwent standing BPR and supine CT of the pelvis. Using dedicated software, BPR-based calculations of anterior and posterior 2D coverages and anterior, posterior, and global 3D coverages were performed in standardized anterior pelvic plane (APP) and WBP. CT-based anterior and posterior 2D coverages and global 3D coverage was calculated in APP and compared with BPR-based data. Statistics included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots.

Results

Mean anterior 2D coverage was 21.2% (standard deviation, ± 7.4%) for BPR and 23.8% (± 8.4%) for CT (p = 0.226). Mean posterior 2D coverage was 54.2% (± 9.8%) for BPR and 61.7% (± 9.7%) for CT (p = 0.001). Mean global 3D coverage was 46.5% (± 3.0%) for BPR and 45.6% (± 3.6%) for CT (p = 0.215). The inter-method reliability between CT and BPR and inter-reader reliability for BPR-based measurements were very good for all measurement (all ICC > 0.8). Based on BPR, mean anterior and posterior 3D coverages were 20.5% and 26.0% in WBP and APP, while 25 patients increased anterior and 24 patients increased posterior 3D coverage from APP to WBP with a relative change of coverage of up to 11.9% and 10.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on BPR. The impact of standing position on acetabular coverage can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis.

Key Points

• 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on biplanar radiographs in comparison with CT.
• The impact of standing position on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis.
Literature
1.
Klaue K, Wallin A, Ganz R (1988) CT evaluation of coverage and congruency of the hip prior to osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res:15–25
2.
3.
Larson CM, Moreau-Gaudry A, Kelly BT et al (2015) Are normal hips being labeled as pathologic? A CT-based method for defining normal acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1247–1254CrossRefPubMed
4.
Pullen WM, Henebry A, Gaskill T (2014) Variability of acetabular coverage between supine and weightbearing pelvic radiographs. Am J Sports Med 42:2643–2648CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mascarenhas VV, Rego P, Dantas P et al (2018) Can we discriminate symptomatic hip patients from asymptomatic volunteers based on anatomic predictors? A 3-dimensional magnetic resonance study on cam, pincer, and spinopelvic parameters. Am J Sports Med 46:3097–3110CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ferre R, Gibon E, Hamadouche M, Feydy A, Drape JL (2014) Evaluation of a method for the assessment of anterior acetabular coverage and hip joint space width. Skeletal Radiol 43:599–605CrossRefPubMed
7.
Fader RR, Tao MA, Gaudiani MA et al (2018) The role of lumbar lordosis and pelvic sagittal balance in femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint J 100-B:1275–1279CrossRefPubMed
8.
Steppacher SD, Lerch TD, Gharanizadeh K et al (2014) Size and shape of the lunate surface in different types of pincer impingement: theoretical implications for surgical therapy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22:951–958CrossRefPubMed
9.
Fukushima K, Miyagi M, Inoue G et al (2018) Relationship between spinal sagittal alignment and acetabular coverage: a patient-matched control study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:1495–1499CrossRefPubMed
10.
Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K (1999) Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:281–288CrossRefPubMed
11.
Wiberg G (1939) Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint with special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand 83:53–68
12.
Lequesne M (1963) Coxometry. Measurement of the basic angles of the adult radiographic hip by a combined protractor. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic 30:479–485PubMed
13.
Siebenrock KA, Kistler L, Schwab JM, Buchler L, Tannast M (2012) The acetabular wall index for assessing anteroposterior femoral head coverage in symptomatic patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3355–3360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Tannast M, Fritsch S, Zheng G, Siebenrock KA, Steppacher SD (2015) Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1255–1266CrossRefPubMed
15.
Henebry A, Gaskill T (2013) The effect of pelvic tilt on radiographic markers of acetabular coverage. Am J Sports Med 41:2599–2603CrossRefPubMed
16.
Dandachli W, Kannan V, Richards R, Shah Z, Hall-Craggs M, Witt J (2008) Analysis of cover of the femoral head in normal and dysplastic hips: new CT-based technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1428–1434CrossRefPubMed
17.
Miyasaka D, Ito T, Imai N et al (2014) Three-dimensional assessment of femoral head coverage in normal and dysplastic hips: a novel method. Acta Med Okayama 68:277–284PubMed
18.
Chaibi Y, Cresson T, Aubert B et al (2012) Fast 3D reconstruction of the lower limb using a parametric model and statistical inferences and clinical measurements calculation from biplanar X-rays. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 15:457–466CrossRefPubMed
19.
Chiron P, Demoulin L, Wytrykowski K, Cavaignac E, Reina N, Murgier J (2017) Radiation dose and magnification in pelvic X-ray: EOS imaging system versus plain radiographs. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:1155–1159CrossRefPubMed
20.
Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CW, Schwab A, Pankalla K, Buck FM (2013) Comparison of radiation dose, workflow, patient comfort and financial break-even of standard digital radiography and a novel biplanar low-dose X-ray system for upright full-length lower limb and whole spine radiography. Skeletal Radiol 42:959–967CrossRefPubMed
21.
Buck FM, Guggenberger R, Koch PP, Pfirrmann CW (2012) Femoral and tibial torsion measurements with 3D models based on low-dose biplanar radiographs in comparison with standard CT measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W607–W612CrossRefPubMed
22.
Agten CA, Jonczy M, Ullrich O, Pfirrmann CWA, Sutter R, Buck FM (2017) Measurement of acetabular version based on biplanar radiographs with 3D reconstructions in comparison to CT as reference standard in cadavers. Clin Anat 30:591–598CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:217–220CrossRefPubMed
24.
Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E et al (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 9:676–682CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed
26.
Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290CrossRef
27.
Siebenrock KA, Scholl E, Lottenbach M, Ganz R (1999) Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res:9–20
28.
Steppacher SD, Tannast M, Ganz R, Siebenrock KA (2008) Mean 20-year followup of Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1633–1644CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Beck M, Leunig M, Parvizi J, Boutier V, Wyss D, Ganz R (2004) Anterior femoroacetabular impingement: part II. Midterm results of surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res:67–73
30.
Peters CL, Erickson JA (2006) Treatment of femoro-acetabular impingement with surgical dislocation and debridement in young adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1735–1741CrossRefPubMed
31.
Hansen BJ, Harris MD, Anderson LA, Peters CL, Weiss JA, Anderson AE (2012) Correlation between radiographic measures of acetabular morphology with 3D femoral head coverage in patients with acetabular retroversion. Acta Orthop 83:233–239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Riviere C, Hardijzer A, Lazennec JY, Beaule P, Muirhead-Allwood S, Cobb J (2017) Spine-hip relations add understandings to the pathophysiology of femoro-acetabular impingement: a systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:549–557CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Acetabular coverage differs between standing and supine positions: model-based assessment of low-dose biplanar radiographs and comparison with CT
Authors
Benjamin Fritz
Christoph A. Agten
Franca K. Boldt
Patrick O. Zingg
Christian W. A. Pfirrmann
Reto Sutter
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06136-5

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

European Radiology 10/2019 Go to the issue

Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Application of a deep learning algorithm for detection and visualization of hip fractures on plain pelvic radiographs

Neuro

Benefit from revascularization after thrombectomy according to FLAIR vascular hyperintensities–DWI mismatch

Magnetic Resonance

Prognostic value of baseline volumetric multiparametric MR imaging in neuroendocrine liver metastases treated with transarterial chemoembolization

Magnetic Resonance

Intrahepatic dynamic contrast MR lymphangiography: initial experience with a new technique for the assessment of liver lymphatics

Magnetic Resonance

Diagnostic accuracy of hepatic proton density fat fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of liver steatosis with histology as reference standard: a meta-analysis

Musculoskeletal

Whole-body MRI vs bone scintigraphy in the staging of Ewing sarcoma of bone: a 12-year single-institution review