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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy
Published in: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 7/2009

01-08-2009 | Review

Radiographic study of the acetabulum and proximal femur between 1 and 3 years of age

Authors: Pedro Gutiérrez Carbonell, D. Bustamante Suárez de Puga, J. Roca Vicente-Franqueira, A. Lajarín Ortuño

Published in: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy | Issue 7/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The angle formed by the intersection of the line between triradiate cartilage of both hips (Hilgenreiner’s line) and a line drawn between triradiate cartilage and the external roof of the acetabulum is called the acetabular index (AI), the angle formed by line of proximal femoral physis and middiaphysis axis of femur is called the epiphyseal angle (EA). Both decrease with age, but it is not described whether there is a relation between them in this development. It would be very useful to compare its evolution in children with normal hips, in order to compare them with displasic hips in the same groups of age.

Objective

To study the radiographic angles and the relationship between the acetabulum and the proximal femur.

Materials and methods

Retrospective study was performed on pelvic X-rays in 224 children between 1 and 3 years of age. Children with injuries, sepsis or inflammatory disease were excluded. We measured by goniometer (error ±1°): the AI, and the angle of the proximal femoral physis (EA). We have compared statistically the parameters.

Results

The AI was 21.1° (±3.8), 19.9° (±3.5), and 16.1° (±4.2) and EA was 75.8° (±5.1), 75.9° (±6.3), and 75.6° (±4.7), at the ages of 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. A significant difference was noted for AI between 2 and 3 years old (P = 0.003), but there was not significative EA decrease. No significant correlation was found between AI and EA among the different groups, nor overall (r = 0.03). Sex or side was not a significant factor for both angles.

Conclusion

The AI decreases significantly between 1 and 3 years of age, but not the EA. No significant relation was found between them in the different age groups. Normal children’s hips have a tendency to spontaneously improve its acetabular morphology during the first 3 years of life.
Literature
1.
Albinana J, Dolan LA, Sprant KF et al (2004) Acetabular dysplasia after treatment for developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg 86B:876–886CrossRef
2.
Billing L, Bogren HG, Tallin J (2002) Reliable X-ray diagnosis of slipped capital femoral epiphysis by combining the conventional and a new simplified geometrical method. Pediatr Radiol 32:423–430PubMedCrossRef
3.
Boniforti FG, Fujii G, Angliss RD, Benson MD (1997) The reliability of measurements of pelvic radiographs in infants. J Bone Joint Surg 79B:570–575CrossRef
4.
Broughton NS, Brougham DI, Cole WG, Menelaus MB (1989) Reliability of radiological measurement in the assessment of the child’s hip. J Bone Joint Surg 71 B:6–8
5.
Chung SMK, Batterman SC, Brighton CT (1976) Shear strength of the human femoral capital epiphyseal plate. J Bone Joint Surg 58 A:94–103
6.
Garvey M, Donoghue VB, Gorman WA, O’Brien N, Murphy JF (1992) Radiographic screening at four months of infants at risk for congenital hip dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg 74B:704–707
7.
Greco F, de Palma L, Specchia N, Mannarini M (1989) Growth-plate cartilage metabolic response to mechanical stress. J Pediatr Orthop 9:520–524PubMed
8.
Grissom L, Harcke HT, Thacker M (2008) Imaging in the surgical management of developmental dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop 466:791–801PubMedCrossRef
9.
Haraldsson S (1968) The epiphyseal angle in coxa vara infantum and its relation to results. Acta Orthop Scand 39:76–81PubMedCrossRef
10.
Harris NH (1976) Acetabular growth potential in congenital dislocation on the hip and some factors upon which it may depend. Clin Orthop 119:99–106PubMed
11.
Heimkes B, Posel P, Plitz W, Jansson V (1993) Forces acting on the juvenile hip in the one-legged stance. J Pediatr Orthop 13:431–436PubMed
12.
Hughes L, Aronson J, Smith S (1999) Normal radiographic values for cartilage thickness and physeal angle in pediatric hip. J Pediatr Orthop 19:443–448PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kay RM, Jaki KA, Skaggs DL (2000) The effect of femoral rotation on the projected femoral neck-shaft angle. J Pediatr Orthop 20:736–739PubMed
14.
Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Schroeder TM, O’Brien MF (2006) Comparison of manual and digital measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31:1240–1246PubMedCrossRef
15.
Kummer B (1993) Is the Pawels’ theory of hip biomechanics still valid? A critical analysis based on modern methods. Ann Anat 175:203–210PubMed
16.
Loder RT, Spiegel D, Gutknecht S, Kleist K, Ly T, Mehbod A (2004) The assessment of intraobserver error in the measurement of noncongenital scoliosis in ≤10 years of age. Spine 29:2548–2553PubMedCrossRef
17.
Mirkopulos N, Weiner DS, Askew M (1988) The evolving slope of the femoral growth plate relationship to slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthop 8:268–273PubMed
18.
Mitchell PD, Chew NS, Goutos I, Hebly EC, Lee JC, Evans S, Hulme A (2007) The value of MRI undertaken immediately after reduction of the hip as a predictor of long-term acetabular dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg 89B:948–952
19.
Mladenov K, Dora C, Wicart P, Seringe R (2002) Natural history of hips with borderline acetabular index and acetabular dysplasia in infants. J Pediatr Orthop 22:607–612PubMedCrossRef
20.
Öguz Ö (1996) Measurement and relationship of the inclination angle, Alsberg angle and the angle between the anatomical and mechanical axes of the femur in males. Surg Radiol Anat 18:29–31PubMedCrossRef
21.
Paton RW, Srinivasan MS, Shah B, Hollis S (1999) Ultrasound screening for hips at risk in developmental dysplasia. Is it worth it? J Bone Joint Surg 81A:255–258CrossRef
22.
Ponseti I (1978) Growth and development of the acetabulum in the normal child. J Bone Joint Surg 60A:575–585
23.
Ponseti I (1978) Morphology of the acetabulum in congenital dislocation of the hip. Gross, histological, and roentgenographic studies. J Bone Joint Surg 60A:586–599
24.
Portinaro NM, Murray DW, Bhullar TP, Benson MK (1995) Errors in measurement of acetabular index. J Pediatr Orthop 15:780–784PubMed
25.
Skaggs D, Kaminsky C, Tolo V, Kay RM, Reynolds RA (1998) Variability in measurement of acetabular index in normal and dysplastic hips, before and after reduction. J Pediatr Orthop 18:799–801PubMedCrossRef
26.
Spatz DK, Reiger M, Klaumann M, Miller F, Stanton RP, Lipton GE (1997) Measurement of acetabular index intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Pediatr Orthop 17:174–175PubMed
27.
Tan L, Aktas S, Copuroglu C, Ozcan M, Ture M (2001) Reliability of radiological parameters measured on anteroposterior pelvis radiographs of patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. Acta Orthop Belg 67:374–379PubMed
28.
Than P, Sillinger T, Kránicz J, Bellyei A (2004) Radiographic parameters of the hip joint from birth to adolescence. Pediatr Radiol 34:237–244PubMedCrossRef
29.
Tönnis D (1976) Normal values of the hip joint for the evaluation of X- rays in children and adults. Clin Orthop 119:39–47PubMed
30.
Weintroub S, Green I, Terdiman R, Weissman SL (1979) Growth and development of congenitally dislocated hip reduced in early infancy. J Bone Joint Surg 61A:125–130
Metadata
Title
Radiographic study of the acetabulum and proximal femur between 1 and 3 years of age
Authors
Pedro Gutiérrez Carbonell
D. Bustamante Suárez de Puga
J. Roca Vicente-Franqueira
A. Lajarín Ortuño
Publication date
01-08-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy / Issue 7/2009
Print ISSN: 0930-1038
Electronic ISSN: 1279-8517
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-009-0478-y

Other articles of this Issue 7/2009

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 7/2009 Go to the issue

Anatomic Variations

High resolution 3.0 Tesla MR imaging findings in patients with bilateral Madelung’s deformity

Original Article

Longitudinal striae of the human fornix: shape, relations and variations

Original Article

64-row MDCT review of anatomic features and variations of the normal greater omentum

Original Article

Evaluation of the effect of visceral fat area on the distance and angle between the superior mesenteric artery and the aorta

Original Article

Anatomical assessment of bile ducts of Luschka in human fetuses

Letter to the Editor

Anatomical insight into the normal and abnormal branching pattern of the popliteal artery