Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 7/2016

01-07-2016 | Clinical Research

Supine and Standing AP Pelvis Radiographs in the Evaluation of Pincer Femoroacetabular Impingement

Authors: Timothy J. Jackson, MD, Allyson A. Estess, MD, Gregory J. Adamson, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 7/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pelvic tilt can affect the presence of the ischial spine sign and crossover sign. Numerous studies of pelvic tilt on radiographic measurements of pincer impingement have shown that increasing anterior tilt is associated with more radiographic signs of pincer impingement. However, to our knowledge, no study has directly compared supine and standing plain radiographs in patients with respect to lateral center-edge (LCE) angle, acetabular inclination, crossover sign, and ischial spine sign.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in supine and standing AP pelvis radiographs as they relate to the radiographic parameters of pincer impingement in an adult population evaluated for femoroacetabular impingement, specifically intrapelvic distances (sacrococcygeal to symphysis [SC-S] and coccyx tip to symphysis [T-S]), crossover sign (presence and percentage), LCE angle, inclination, and ischial spine sign.

Methods

Between August 2013 and June 2014, we obtained supine and standing radiographs for all new patients younger than 60 years who were evaluated for hip pain, when the diagnosis of fracture was not being considered; these formed the basis of this retrospective study. Patients were excluded if they had arthritis (Tönnis grade ≥ 2), lumbar fusion, previous hip surgery, or malrotated films. Forty-six hips, symptomatic side, met the inclusion criteria (age of patients, 33 ± 14 years; 13 males, 33 females). Radiographic data that were collected included SC-S distance, T-S distance, LCE angle, acetabular inclination, presence and percentage of crossover sign, and presence of ischial spine sign. A paired t-test was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Two independent readers performed measurements.

Results

From supine to standing films, the T-S distance decreased from 19 ± 18 mm to 6 ± 19 mm (p < 0.001), and SC-S distance decreased from 47 ± 19 mm to 32 ± 20 mm (p < 0.001), indicating less pelvic tilt in the standing position. The number of hips that had crossover signs decreased from supine (n = 18, 39%) to standing (n = 9, 20%) (p = 0.039). The amount of crossover decreased from 23% ± 10% to 11% ±13% (p < 0.001). LCE angle did not change (27° ± 7° to 27° ± 8°) (p = 0.64) and inclination angle increased by a small amount (4.2° ± 5° to 5.3° ± 5°) (p = 0.002). The ischial spine sign decreased from supine (n = 20, 43%) to standing (n = 7, 15%) position (p = 0.003).

Conclusions

There is a decrease in the amount of pelvic tilt on standing AP pelvis radiographs resulting in a decrease in the incidence and amount of crossover sign and ischial spine sign, and a small increase in inclination. Standing radiographs should be the standard in evaluation of nonarthritic hip pain, specifically pincer femoroacetabular impingement. Surgeons should use caution in interpreting supine AP radiographs in the evaluation of pincer impingement, specifically the crossover sign.

Level of Evidence

Level III, diagnostic study.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bhatia S, Lee S, Shewman E, Mather RC 3rd, Salata MJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Nho SJ. Effects of acetabular rim trimming on hip joint contact pressures: how much is too much? Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:2138–2145.CrossRefPubMed Bhatia S, Lee S, Shewman E, Mather RC 3rd, Salata MJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Nho SJ. Effects of acetabular rim trimming on hip joint contact pressures: how much is too much? Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:2138–2145.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaule PE, Kim YJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Leunig M, Schoenecker PL, Millis MB. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008:90(suppl 4):47–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaule PE, Kim YJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Leunig M, Schoenecker PL, Millis MB. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008:90(suppl 4):47–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Domb BG, Stake CE, Botser IB, Jackson TJ. Surgical dislocation of the hip versus arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: a prospective matched-pair study with average 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:1506–1513.CrossRefPubMed Domb BG, Stake CE, Botser IB, Jackson TJ. Surgical dislocation of the hip versus arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: a prospective matched-pair study with average 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:1506–1513.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Henebry A, Gaskill T. The effect of pelvic tilt on radiographic markers of acetabular coverage. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2599–2603.CrossRefPubMed Henebry A, Gaskill T. The effect of pelvic tilt on radiographic markers of acetabular coverage. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2599–2603.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Kakaty DK, Fischer AF, Hosalkar HS, Siebenrock KA, Tannast M. The ischial spine sign: does pelvic tilt and rotation matter? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:769–774.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kakaty DK, Fischer AF, Hosalkar HS, Siebenrock KA, Tannast M. The ischial spine sign: does pelvic tilt and rotation matter? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:769–774.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Monazzam S, Agashe M, Hosalkar HS. Reliability of overcoverage parameters with varying morphologic pincer features: comparison of EOS® and radiography. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2578–2585.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Monazzam S, Agashe M, Hosalkar HS. Reliability of overcoverage parameters with varying morphologic pincer features: comparison of EOS® and radiography. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2578–2585.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Ross JR, Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Bedi A. Effect of changes in pelvic tilt on range of motion to impingement and radiographic parameters of acetabular morphologic characteristics. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:2402–2409.CrossRefPubMed Ross JR, Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Bedi A. Effect of changes in pelvic tilt on range of motion to impingement and radiographic parameters of acetabular morphologic characteristics. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:2402–2409.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ross JR, Tannenbaum EP, Nepple JJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Bedi A. Functional acetabular orientation varies between supine and standing radiographs: implications for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1267–1273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ross JR, Tannenbaum EP, Nepple JJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Bedi A. Functional acetabular orientation varies between supine and standing radiographs: implications for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1267–1273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;407:241–248.CrossRefPubMed Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;407:241–248.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Tannast M, Murphy SB, Langlotz F, Anderson SE, Siebenrock KA. Estimation of pelvic tilt on anteroposterior X-rays: a comparison of six parameters. Skeletal Radiol. 2006;35:149–155.CrossRefPubMed Tannast M, Murphy SB, Langlotz F, Anderson SE, Siebenrock KA. Estimation of pelvic tilt on anteroposterior X-rays: a comparison of six parameters. Skeletal Radiol. 2006;35:149–155.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Tannast M, Zheng G, Anderegg C, Burckhardt K, Langlotz F, Ganz R, Siebenrock KA. Tilt and rotation correction of acetabular version on pelvic radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:182–190.CrossRefPubMed Tannast M, Zheng G, Anderegg C, Burckhardt K, Langlotz F, Ganz R, Siebenrock KA. Tilt and rotation correction of acetabular version on pelvic radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:182–190.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Tönnis D, Brunken D. [Differentiation of normal and pathological acetabular roof angle in the diagnosis of hip dysplasia: evaluation of 2294 acetabular roof angles of hip joints in children] [in German]. Arch Orthop Unfallchir. 1968;64:197–228.CrossRefPubMed Tönnis D, Brunken D. [Differentiation of normal and pathological acetabular roof angle in the diagnosis of hip dysplasia: evaluation of 2294 acetabular roof angles of hip joints in children] [in German]. Arch Orthop Unfallchir. 1968;64:197–228.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1747–1770.PubMed Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1747–1770.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Supine and Standing AP Pelvis Radiographs in the Evaluation of Pincer Femoroacetabular Impingement
Authors
Timothy J. Jackson, MD
Allyson A. Estess, MD
Gregory J. Adamson, MD
Publication date
01-07-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4766-7

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 7/2016 Go to the issue

Symposium: Proceedings of the 2015 Musculoskeletal Infection Society

The ACS NSQIP Risk Calculator Is a Fair Predictor of Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infection