Abstract: Validated software tools (Clinical Graphics [CG] and Hip 2 Norm) permit measurement of the percentage of femoral head coverage (%FHC), which aids in morphological classification and prediction of outcome after hip preservation surgery. Purpose: (1) To assess whether acetabular parameter measurements determined from 2 commonly used software systems are comparable. (2) To determine which parameters influence the correlation or differences between software outputs and measurements. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The study included 69 patients (90 hips) who underwent periacetabular osteotomy and had comprehensive preoperative imaging available. Lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), acetabular index (AI), and %FHC were determined using 3-dimensional computed tomography (CT) measurements by CG and Hip 2 Norm software. Images of 18 pelvises were segmented to determine spinopelvic parameters and subtended acetabular angles. Between-group measurements were compared using correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses. The difference in the outputs of the 2 programs was defined as delta (Δ). Radiographic parameters were tested to assess whether they were responsible for differences in %FHC between software programs. Results: Strong correlations between LCEA (ρ = 0.862) and AI (ρ = 0.825) measurements were seen between the Hip 2 Norm and CG programs. However, weak correlation was seen in the estimate of %FHC (ρ = 0.358), with the presence of a systematic error. Hip 2 Norm consistently produced lower anterior, posterior, and total %FHC values than CG. The %FHC determined by CG, but not Hip 2 Norm, correlated with acetabular subtended angles ( P 〈 .05). Pelvic tilt measured on CT did not correlate with pelvic tilt estimated by Hip 2 Norm ( P = .56), and ΔPelvicTilt strongly correlated with the difference in %FHC by the 2 software programs (ρ = 0.63; P = .005), pelvic incidence (ρ = 0.73; P 〈 .001), and pelvic tilt (ρ = −0.91; P 〈 .001) as per CT. Conclusion: The correlation of %FHC between Hip 2 Norm and CG was weak (ρ = 0.358). The difference in measurements of %FHC correlated with ΔPelvicTilt. The %FHC determined by CG strongly correlated with the segmented acetabular subtended angles and thus more likely reflected true values. Hip preservation surgeons should be aware of these measurement differences because %FHC is important in the diagnosis and prognosis of acetabular dysplasia.

Abstract: Acetabular morphology is an important determinant of hip biomechanics. To identify features of acetabular morphology that may be associated with the development of hip symptoms while accounting for spinopelvic characteristics, one needs to determine acetabular characteristics in a group of individuals older than 45 years without symptoms or signs of osteoarthritis. Previous studied have used patients with unknown physical status to define morphological thresholds to guide management. Questions/purposes (1) To determine acetabular morphological characteristics in males and females between 45 and 60 years old with a high Oxford hip score (OHS) and no signs of osteoarthritis; (2) to compare these characteristics with those of symptomatic hip patients treated with hip arthroscopy or periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for various kinds of hip pathology (dysplasia, retroversion, and cam femoroacetabular impingement); and (3) to assess which radiographic or CT parameters most accurately differentiate between patients who had symptomatic hips and those who did not, and thus, define thresholds that can guide management. Methods Between January 2018 and December 2018, 1358 patients underwent an abdominopelvic CT scan in our institution for nonorthopaedic conditions. Of those, we considered 5% (73) of patients as potentially eligible as controls based on the absence of major hip osteoarthritis, trauma, or deformity. Patients were excluded if their OHS was 43 or less (2% [28]), if they had a PROMIS less than 50 (1% [18] ), or their Tönnis score was higher than 1 (0.4% [6]). Another eight patients were excluded because of insufficient datasets. After randomly selecting one side for each control, 40 hips were left for analysis (age 55 ± 5 years; 48% [19 of 40] were in females). In this comparative study, this asymptomatic group was compared with a group of patients treated with hip arthroscopy or PAO. Between January 2013 and December 2020, 221 hips underwent hip preservation surgery. Of those, eight were excluded because of previous pelvic surgery, and 102 because of insufficient CT scans. One side was randomly selected in patients who underwent bilateral procedure, leaving 48% (107 of 221) of hips for analysis (age 31 ± 8 years; 54% [58 of 107] were in females). Detailed radiographic and CT assessments (including segmentation) were performed to determine acetabular (depth, cartilage coverage, subtended angles, anteversion, and inclination) and spinopelvic (pelvic tilt and incidence) parameters. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to assess diagnostic accuracy and determine which morphological parameters (and their threshold) differentiate most accurately between symptomatic patients and asymptomatic controls. Results Acetabular morphology in asymptomatic hips was characterized by a mean depth of 22 ± 2 mm, with an articular cartilage surface of 2619 ± 415 mm 2 , covering 70% ± 6% of the articular surface, a mean acetabular inclination of 48° ± 6°, and a minimal difference between anatomical (24° ± 7°) and functional (22° ± 6°) anteversion. Patients with symptomatic hips generally had less acetabular depth (20 ± 4 mm versus 22 ± 2 mm, mean difference 3 mm [95% CI 1 to 4]; p 〈 0.001). Hips with dysplasia (67% ± 5% versus 70% ± 6%, mean difference 6% [95% CI 0% to 12%]; p = 0.03) or retroversion (67% ± 5% versus 70% ± 6%, mean difference 6% [95% CI 1% to 12%] ; p = 0.04) had a slightly lower relative cartilage area compared with asymptomatic hips. There was no difference in acetabular inclination (48° ± 6° versus 47° ± 7°, mean difference 0.5° [95% CI -2° to 3°]; p = 0.35), but asymptomatic hips had higher anatomic anteversion (24° ± 7° versus 19° ± 8°, mean difference 6° [95% CI 3° to 9°] ; p 〈 0.001) and functional anteversion (22° ± 6° versus 13°± 9°, mean difference 9° [95% CI 6° to 12°]; p 〈 0.001). Subtended angles were higher in asymptomatic at 105° (124° ± 7° versus 114° ± 12°, mean difference 11° [95% CI 3° to 17°]; p 〈 0.001), 135° (122° ± 9° versus 111° ± 12°, mean difference 10° [95% CI 2° to 15°]; p 〈 0.001), and 165° (112° ± 9° versus 102° ± 11°, mean difference 10° [95% CI 2° to 14°]; p 〈 0.001) around the acetabular clockface. Symptomatic hips had a lower pelvic tilt (8° ± 8° versus 11° ± 5°, mean difference 3° [95% CI 1° to 5°]; p = 0.007). The posterior wall index had the highest discriminatory ability of all measured parameters, with a cutoff value of less than 0.9 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.84 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.91]) for a symptomatic acetabulum (sensitivity 72%, specificity 78%). Diagnostically useful parameters on CT scan to differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic hips were acetabular depth less than 22 mm (AUC 0.74 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.83] ) and functional anteversion less than 19° (AUC 0.79 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.87]). Subtended angles with the highest accuracy to differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic hips were those at 105° (AUC 0.76 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.88] ), 135° (AUC 0.78 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.86]), and 165° (AUC 0.77 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.85] ) of the acetabular clockface. Conclusion An anatomical and functional acetabular anteversion of 24° and 22°, with a pelvic tilt of 10°, increases the acetabular opening and allows for more impingement-free flexion while providing sufficient posterosuperior coverage for loading. Hips with lower anteversion or a larger difference between anatomic and functional anteversion were more likely to be symptomatic. The importance of sufficient posterior coverage was also illustrated by the posterior wall indices and subtended angles at 105°, 135°, and 165° of the acetabular clockface having a high discriminatory ability to differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic hips. Future research should confirm whether integrating these parameters when selecting patients for hip preservation procedures can improve postoperative outcomes. Level of Evidence Level III, prognostic study.

Abstract: Acetabular and spino‐pelvic (SP) morphological parameters are important determinants of hip joint dynamics. This prospective study aimed to determine whether acetabular and SP morphological differences exist between hips with and without cam morphology and between symptomatic and asymptomatic hips with cam morphology. A cohort of 67 patients/hips was studied. Hips were either asymptomatic with no cam (Controls, n  = 18), symptomatic with cam ( n  = 26) or asymptomatic with cam ( n  = 23). CT‐based quantitative assessments of femoral, acetabular, pelvic, and spino‐pelvic parameters were performed. Measurements were compared between controls and those with a cam deformity, as well as between the three groups. Morphological parameters that were independent predictors of a symptomatic cam were determined using a regression analysis. Hips with cam deformity had slightly smaller subtended angles superior‐anteriorly (87° vs. 84°, p  = 0.04) and greater pelvic incidence (53° vs. 48°, p  = 0.003) compared to controls. Symptomatic cams had greater acetabular version ( p   〈  0.01), greater subtended angles superiorly and superior‐posteriorly ( p  = 0.01), higher pelvic incidence ( p  = 0.02), greater alpha angles and lower femoral neck‐shaft angles compared to asymptomatic cams ( p   〈  0.01) and controls ( p   〈  0.01). The four predictors of symptomatic cam included antero‐superior alpha angle, femoral neck‐shaft angle, acetabular depth, and pelvic incidence. In conclusion, this study illustrates that symptomatic hips had a greater amount of supero‐posterior coverage; which would be the contact area between a radial cam and the acetabulum, when the hip is flexed to 90°. Furthermore, individuals with symptomatic cam morphology had greater PI. Acetabular‐ and SP parameters should be part of the radiological assessment of femoro‐acetabular impingement. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1840–1848, 2018.

Abstract: Acetabular retroversion may lead to impingement and pain, which can be treated with an anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (aPAO). Pelvic tilt influences acetabular orientation; as pelvic tilt angle reduces, acetabular version reduces. Thus, acetabular retroversion may be a deformity secondary to abnormal pelvic tilt (functional retroversion) or an anatomic deformity of the acetabulum and the innominate bone (pelvic ring). Purpose: To (1) measure the spinopelvic morphology in patients with acetabular retroversion and (2) assess whether pelvic tilt changes after successful anteverting PAO (aPAO), thus testing whether preoperative pelvic tilt was compensatory. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A consecutive cohort of 48 hips (42 patients; 30 ± 7 years [mean ± SD]) with acetabular retroversion that underwent successful aPAO was studied. Spinopelvic morphology (pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, anterior pelvic plane, and sacral slope) was measured from computed tomography scans including the sacral end plate in 21 patients, with adequate images. In addition, the change in pelvic tilt with aPAO was measured via the sacrofemoral-pubic angle with supine pelvic radiographs at an interval of 2.5 ± 2 years. Results: The spinopelvic characteristics included a pelvic tilt of 4° ± 4°, a sacral slope of 39° ± 9°, an anterior pelvic plane angle of 11° ± 5°, and a pelvic incidence of 42° ± 10°. Preoperative pelvic tilt was 4° ± 4° and did not change postoperatively (4° ± 4°) ( P = .676). Conclusion: Pelvic tilt in acetabular retroversion was within normal parameters, illustrating “normal” sagittal pelvic balance and values similar to those reported in the literature in healthy subjects. In addition, it did not change after aPAO. Thus, acetabular retroversion was not secondary to a maladaptive pelvic tilt (functional retroversion). Further work is required to assess whether retroversion is a reflection of a pelvic morphological abnormality rather than an isolated acetabular abnormality. Treatment of acetabular retroversion should focus on correcting the deformity rather than attempting to change the functional pelvic position.