Advertisement

Anatomical landmarks for acetabular abduction in adult hips: the teardrop vs. the inferior acetabular rim

  • Jin ParkEmail author
  • Gab Lae Kim
  • Kyu Hyun Yang
Original Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare the acetabular teardrop (the structure located inferomedially in the acetabulum, just superior to the obturator foramen. The medial lip is the interior, and the lateral lip is the exterior of the acetabular wall) with the inferior acetabular rim as anatomical landmarks to measure the acetabular abduction angle (AAD) using coronal CT images from different levels.

Methods

Our retrospective study included 120 pelvic CT scans from patients with non-orthopedic pathologies or stress fractures of the proximal femur. The patients included 60 females with a mean age of 48 years (range 40–66) and 60 males with a mean age of 46 years (range 38–65). Each AAD was measured using coronal plane CT slices from five levels: AAD (+ 10) (10 mm anterior to the femoral head center), AAD (+ 5) (5 mm anterior to the femoral head center), AAD (0) (through the femoral head center), AAD (− 5) (5 mm posterior to the femoral head center), and AAD (− 10) (10 mm posterior to the femoral head center). The measurements were then divided into two groups: teardrop-based AADs [AAD (+ 10), AAD (+ 5), and AAD (0)] and rim-based AADs [AAD (− 5) and AAD (− 10)].

Results

There were no mean significant differences in AAD within the groups, whereas the difference between the groups was significant. The mean teardrop-based AAD was quite significantly different from the mean rim-based AAD due to the use of different anatomical landmarks. Teardrop-based AADs are lower than rim-based AADs, leading to measurement differences of more than 10°.

Conclusions

AAD measurements considering the inferior acetabular rim can be more accurate than those considering the acetabular teardrop because the inferior rim represents the nearly hemispheric acetabulum better than does the teardrop. It is recommended to differentiate between the teardrop and the inferior acetabular rim when measuring AAD to avoid confusion regarding acetabular abduction.

Keywords

Acetabular abduction Teardrop Inferior acetabular rim 

Notes

Author contributions

JP: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. GLK: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. KHY: project development, data analysis.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Anda S, Svenningsen S, Grontvedt T, Benum P (1990) Pelvic inclination and spatial orientation of the acetabulum. A radiographic, computed tomographic and clinical investigation. Acta Radiol 31:389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anda S, Terjesen T, Kvistad KA (1991) Computed tomography measurements of the acetabulum in adult dysplastic hips: which level is appropriate? Skeletal Radiol 20:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anda S, Terjesen T, Kvistad KA, Svenningsen S (1991) Acetabular angles and femoral anteversion in dysplastic hips in adults: CT investigation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R, Kim YJ, Beaule PE, Morgan P, Steger-May K, Schoenecker PL, Millis M (2009) Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:666–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hohmann E, Bryant A, Tetsworth K (2011) A comparison between imageless navigated and manual freehand technique acetabular cup placement in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26:1078–1082.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalteis T, Handel M, Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Grifka J (2006) Imageless navigation for insertion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: is it as accurate as CT-based navigation? J Bone Jt Surg Br 88:163–167.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.88b2.17163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kanazawa M, Nakashima Y, Arai T, Ushijima T, Hirata M, Hara D, Iwamoto Y (2016) Quantification of pelvic tilt and rotation by width/height ratio of obturator foramina on anteroposterior radiographs. Hip Int 26:462–467.  https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Jt Surg Am 60:217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murphy SB, Ganz R, Muller ME (1995) The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77:985–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murphy SB, Kijewski PK, Millis MB, Harless A (1990) Acetabular dysplasia in the adolescent and young adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990:214–223Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murray DW (1993) The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Jt Surg Br 75:228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murtha PE, Hafez MA, Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM 3rd (2008) Variations in acetabular anatomy with reference to total hip replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 90:308–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nagao Y, Aoki H, Ishii SJ, Masuda T, Beppu M (2008) Radiographic method to measure the inclination angle of the acetabulum. J Orthop Sci 13:62–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-007-1188-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Omeroglu H, Kaya A, Guclu B (2007) Evidence-based current concepts in the radiological diagnosis and follow-up of developmental dysplasia of the hip. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 41(Suppl 1):14–18Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parvizi J, Benson JR, Muir JM (2018) A new mini-navigation tool allows accurate component placement during anterior total hip arthroplasty. Med Devices (Auckl) 11:95–104.  https://doi.org/10.2147/mder.S151835 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reikeras O, Bjerkreim I, Kolbenstvedt A (1983) Anteversion of the acetabulum and femoral neck in normals and in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Acta Orthop Scand 54:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R (2003) Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stem ES, O’Connor MI, Kransdorf MJ, Crook J (2006) Computed tomography analysis of acetabular anteversion and abduction. Skeletal Radiol 35:385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takeda Y, Fukunishi S, Nishio S, Fujihara Y, Yoshiya S (2017) Accuracy of component orientation and leg length adjustment in total hip arthroplasty using image-free navigation. Open Orthop J 11:1432–1439.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tannast M, Murphy SB, Langlotz F, Anderson SE, Siebenrock KA (2006) Estimation of pelvic tilt on anteroposterior X-rays—a comparison of six parameters. Skeletal Radiol 35:149–155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-005-0050-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tonnis D, Heinecke A (1999) Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81:1747–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart HospitalHallym UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, College of MedicineYonsei UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations