z-logo
Premium
Standardized AP radiographs do not provide reliable diagnostic measures for the assessment of acetabular retroversion
Author(s) -
Wassilew Georgi I.,
Heller Markus O.,
Diederichs Gerd,
Janz Viktor,
Wenzl Markus,
Perka Carsten
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of orthopaedic research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.041
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1554-527X
pISSN - 0736-0266
DOI - 10.1002/jor.22086
Subject(s) - pelvic tilt , radiography , pelvis , medicine , femoroacetabular impingement , acetabulum , radiology , orthodontics , nuclear medicine , tilt (camera) , sign (mathematics) , computed tomography , anatomy , mechanical engineering , mathematical analysis , mathematics , engineering
Abstract Diagnosis of acetabular retroversion is essential in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), but its assessment from radiographs is complicated by pelvic tilt and the two‐dimensional nature of plain films. We performed a study to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the cross‐over sign (COS) and the posterior wall sign (PWS) in identifying acetabular retroversion. COS and PWS were evaluated from radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans as the standard of reference in 50 hips of subjects with symptoms of FAI. A CT‐based method using three‐dimensional (3D) models was developed to measure the COS, PWS, true acetabular version, and pelvic tilt relative to the anterior pelvic plane. The new CT‐based method aimed to eliminate errors resulting from variations in the position and orientation of the pelvis during imaging. A low level of agreement for COS and PWS was found between radiographs and CT scans. A positive COS strongly correlated with pelvic tilt. These results suggest that COS and PWS determined from anteroposterior radiographs are considerably limited by pelvic tilt and inherent limitations of radiographs. Their use as the sole basis for deciding whether or not surgical intervention is indicated seems questionable. © 2012 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 30:1369–1376, 2012

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here