Hip Morphology on Post-Reduction MRI Predicts Residual Dysplasia 10 Years After Open or Closed Reduction.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence supporting the value of morphological parameters on post-reduction magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict long-term residual acetabular dysplasia (RAD) after closed or open reduction for the treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 42 patients (47 hips) undergoing open or closed reduction with a minimum 10 years of follow-up; 39 (83%) of the hips were in female patients, and the median age at reduction was 6.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3.3 to 8.9 months). RAD was defined as additional surgery with an acetabular index >2 standard deviations above the age- and sex-specific population-based mean value or Severin classification grade of >2 at last follow-up. Acetabular version and depth-width ratio, coronal and axial femoroacetabular distance, cartilaginous and osseous acetabular indices, transverse ligament thickness, and the thickness of the medial and lateral (limbus) acetabular cartilage were measured on post-reduction MRI. RESULTS: At the time of final follow-up, 24 (51%) of the hips had no RAD; 23 (49%) reached a failure end point at a median of 11.4 years (IQR, 7.6 to 15.4 years). Most post-reduction MRI measurements, with the exception of the cartilaginous acetabular index, revealed a significant distinction between the group with RAD and the group with no RAD when mean values were compared. The coronal femoroacetabular distance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.00), with a 5-mm cutoff, and limbus thickness (AUC, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.99), with a 4-mm cutoff, had the highest discriminatory ability. A 5-mm cutoff for the coronal femoroacetabular distance produced 96% sensitivity (95% CI, 78% to 100%), 83% specificity (95% CI, 63% to 95%), 85% positive predictive value (95% CI, 65% to 96%), and 95% negative predictive value (95% CI, 76% to 100%). A 4-mm cutoff for limbus thickness had 96% sensitivity (95% CI, 78% to 100%), 63% specificity (95% CI, 41% to 81%), 71% positive predictive value (95% CI, 52% to 86%), and 94% negative predictive value (95% CI, 70% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Coronal femoroacetabular distance, a quantitative metric assessing a reduction's concentricity, and limbus thickness, a quantitative metric assessing the acetabulum's cartilaginous component, help to predict hips that will have RAD in the long term after closed or open reduction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Treatment of Symptomatic Residual Deformity in Legg-Calvé-Perthes Disease: Mid-Term Outcomes and Predictors of Failure After Surgical Hip Dislocation with Femoral-Head Reshaping and Relative Neck Lengthening.

BACKGROUND: Treating patients with symptomatic hips after healed Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD) is challenging, mainly because of the complexity of the deformity. We performed a retrospective study to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes, measure the survival rate, and identify predictors of failure following a surgical hip dislocation (SHD) with femoral-head reshaping and relative femoral-neck lengthening for the treatment of symptomatic residual hip deformity after healed LCPD. METHODS: We identified 60 patients undergoing SHD for the treatment of symptomatic residual LCPD deformity. Fifty-one (85%) of the patients (mean age, 16.3 ± 4.7 years; 21 male patients [41%]), were followed ≥4 years after surgery. We defined surgical failure as conversion to, or recommendation for, total hip arthroplasty (THA) or a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score of ≥10 at the most recent follow-up. We used a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors that were predictive of failure. The rate of survival free from failure was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier curve. RESULTS: Twenty (39%) of the patients met 1 of the end-point criteria for surgical failure, while the hips of the remaining 31 (61%) of the patients were successfully preserved at a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 5.7 to 12.9 years). The estimated survival was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70% to 92%) at 5 years and 66% (95% CI = 53% to 81%) at 10 years. Independent factors associated with surgical failure were the severity of preoperative pain as assessed by the WOMAC pain score (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.30; p = 0.01) and the severity of the deformity as assessed by the anteroposterior alpha angle (HR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.11; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found that SHD with relative femoral-neck lengthening and osteochondroplasty of the femoral head-neck junction was associated with improved deformity as assessed radiographically and decreased pain and symptoms of stiffness among patients with symptomatic residual LCPD deformity. Preoperative pain and deformity were identified as predictors of surgical failure. Further research is needed to establish the role of SHD and other procedures in preserving the hip over the long term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic L evel IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Asymmetrically increased femoral version with high prevalence of moderate and severe femoral anteversion in unilateral Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease.

PURPOSE: To determine and stratify femoral version in Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD), and to compare the femoral version between the LCPD hip and the contralateral unaffected hip. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 45 patients with unilateral LCPD who had available CT scan through the hips and knees between January 2000 and June 2017. There were 34 (76%) male cases with a mean age of 14 years (sd 4.69). Two independent readers measured femoral version on the affected and the unaffected contralateral femur. Femoral version was classified as follows: severely decreased version (< 10°); moderately decreased (10° to 14°); normal femoral version range (15° to 20°); moderately increased (21° to 25°); and severely increased version (> 25°). RESULTS: LCPD hips had predominantly increased femoral version (38% severely increased anteversion, 24% moderately increased anteversion), while 51% of the contralateral unaffected hips had normal femoral version (p < 0.001). LCPD hips had higher mean femoral version than the contralateral, unaffected side (mean difference = 13o; 95% confidence iterval 10o to 16o; p < 0.001). As the version of the affected hip increased, so did the discrepancy between sides. No effect of sex on the LCPD femoral version was detected (p = 0.34). CONCLUSION: This study included a selected group of patients with unilateral LCPD and available CT scans obtained for surgical planning. The femoral version was asymmetric, with a high proportion of excessive anteversion observed at later stages of disease in the affected hips. Future studies will be necessary to determine the pathogenesis of increased femoral version associated with LCPD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective study.

How Common Is Femoral Retroversion and How Is it Affected by Different Measurement Methods in Unilateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis?

BACKGROUND: Although femoral retroversion has been linked to the onset of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), and may result from a rotation of the femoral epiphysis around the epiphyseal tubercle leading to femoral retroversion, femoral version has rarely been described in patients with SCFE. Furthermore, the prevalence of actual femoral retroversion and the effect of different measurement methods on femoral version angles has yet to be studied in SCFE. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do femoral version and the prevalence of femoral retroversion differ between hips with SCFE and the asymptomatic contralateral side? (2) How do the mean femoral version angles and the prevalence of femoral retroversion change depending on the measurement method used? (3) What is the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of these measurement methods? METHODS: For this retrospective, controlled, single-center study, we reviewed our institutional database for patients who were treated for unilateral SCFE and who had undergone a pelvic CT scan. During the period in question, the general indication for obtaining a CT scan was to define the surgical strategy based on the assessment of deformity severity in patients with newly diagnosed SCFE or with previous in situ fixation. After applying prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 79 patients. The mean age was 15 ± 4 years, 48% (38 of 79) of the patients were male, and 56% (44 of 79) were obese (defined as a BMI > 95th percentile (mean BMI 34 ± 9 kg/m2). One radiology resident (6 years of experience) measured femoral version of the entire study group using five different methods. Femoral neck version was measured as the orientation of the femoral neck. Further measurement methods included the femoral head's center and differed regarding the level of landmarks for the proximal femoral reference axis. From proximal to distal, this included the most-proximal methods (Lee et al. and Reikerås et al.) and most-distal methods (Tomczak et al. and Murphy et al.). Most proximally (Lee et al. method), we used the most cephalic junction of the greater trochanter as the landmark and, most distally, we used the center base of the femoral neck superior to the lesser trochanter (Murphy et al.). The orientation of the distal femoral condyles served as the distal reference axis for all five measurement methods. All five methods were compared side-by-side (involved versus uninvolved hip), and comparisons among all five methods were performed using paired t-tests. The prevalence of femoral retroversion (< 0°) was compared using a chi-square test. A subset of patients was measured twice by the first observer and by a second orthopaedic resident (2 years of experience) to assess intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability; for this assessment, we used intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The mean femoral neck version was lower in hips with SCFE than in the contralateral side (-2° ± 13° versus 7° ± 11°; p < 0.001). This yielded a mean side-by side difference of -8° ± 11° (95% CI -11° to -6°; p < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of femoral retroversion in hips with SCFE (58% [95% CI 47% to 69%]; p < 0.001) than on the contralateral side (29% [95% CI 19% to 39%]). These differences between hips with SCFE and the contralateral side were higher and ranged from -17° ± 11° (95% CI -20° to -15°; p < 0.001) based on the method of Tomczak et al. to -22° ± 13° (95% CI -25° to -19°; p < 0.001) according to the method of Murphy et al. The mean overall femoral version angles increased for hips with SCFE using more-distal landmarks compared with more-proximal landmarks. The prevalence of femoral retroversion was higher in hips with SCFE for the proximal methods of Lee et al. and Reikerås et al. (91% [95% CI 85% to 97%] and 84% [95% CI 76% to 92%], respectively) than for the distal measurement methods of Tomczak et al. and Murphy et al. (47% [95% CI 36% to 58%] and 60% [95% CI 49% to 71%], respectively [all p < 0.001]). We detected mean differences ranging from -19° to 4° (all p < 0.005) for 8 of 10 pairwise comparisons in hips with SCFE. Among these, the greatest differences were between the most-proximal methods and the more-distal methods, with a mean difference of -19° ± 7° (95% CI -21° to -18°; p < 0.001), comparing the methods of Lee et al. and Tomczak et al. In hips with SCFE, we found excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.80) for intraobserver reproducibility (reader 1, ICC 0.93 to 0.96) and interobserver reliability (ICC 0.95 to 0.98) for all five measurement methods. Analogously, we found excellent agreement (ICC > 0.80) for intraobserver reproducibility (reader 1, range 0.91 to 0.96) and interobserver reliability (range 0.89 to 0.98) for all five measurement methods in healthy contralateral hips. CONCLUSION: We showed that femoral neck version is asymmetrically decreased in unilateral SCFE, and that differences increase when including the femoral head's center. Thus, to assess the full extent of an SCFE deformity, femoral version measurements should consider the position of the displaced epiphysis. The prevalence of femoral retroversion was high in patients with SCFE and increased when using proximal anatomic landmarks. Since the range of femoral version angles was wide, femoral version cannot be predicted in a given hip and must be assessed individually. Based on these findings, we believe it is worthwhile to add evaluation of femoral version to the diagnostic workup of children with SCFE. Doing so may better inform surgeons as they contemplate when to use isolated offset correction or to perform an additional femoral osteotomy for SCFE correction based on the severity of the slip and the rotational deformity. To facilitate communication among physicians and for the design of future studies, we recommend consistently reporting the applied measurement technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Predicting Risk of Contralateral Slip in Unilateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis: Posterior Epiphyseal Tilt Increases and Superior Epiphyseal Extension Reduces Risk.

BACKGROUND: Femoral morphology may influence the etiology of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). We investigated whether radiographic parameters of femoral head-neck morphology are associated with a subsequent contralateral slip in patients presenting with unilateral SCFE. METHODS: We evaluated 318 patients treated for unilateral SCFE between 2000 and 2017. There were 145 males (46%), and the mean age in the series was 12.4 ± 1.7 years. The patients were followed for a minimum of 18 months or until the development of a contralateral slip (70 patients, 22%). We measured the epiphyseal tilt, epiphyseal extension ratio, alpha angle, and epiphyseal angle of the uninvolved, contralateral hip at initial presentation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether femoral measurements were associated with the occurrence of a contralateral slip. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine optimal thresholds of radiographic measures to determine an increased risk of a contralateral slip. A number-needed-to-treat (NNT) analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the femoral measurement thresholds in preventing a contralateral slip. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis, controlling for triradiate cartilage status, identified the lateral tilt angle and the superior epiphyseal extension ratio as independent factors associated with the likelihood of a contralateral slip. For each additional degree of posterior tilt, the odds of a contralateral slip increase by 8% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02 to 1.14; p = 0.008), and for each 0.01 increase in the superior epiphyseal extension ratio, the odds of a contralateral slip decrease by 6% (OR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.88 to 0.99; p = 0.03). A threshold for the epiphyseal tilt of 10° corresponded to a predicted probability of a contralateral slip of 54% in patients with open triradiate cartilage and an NNT of 3.3. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with unilateral SCFE, a higher posterior tilt of the epiphysis increases the risk while an increased superior extension of the epiphysis reduces the risk of a contralateral slip. Our findings may assist the discussion about contralateral prophylactic pinning in patients with unilateral SCFE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What Is the Reliability and Accuracy of Intraoperative Fluoroscopy in Evaluating Anterior, Lateral, and Posterior Coverage During Periacetabular Osteotomy?

BACKGROUND: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an established treatment for acetabular dysplasia in the skeletally mature individual. Fluoroscopy is used intraoperatively for osteotomy completion and to judge fragment correction. However, a comprehensive study validating fluoroscopy to judge anterior, lateral, and posterior coverage in PAO has not been reported. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are radiographic and fluoroscopic measures of anterior, lateral, and posterior acetabular coverage reliable? (2) Do fluoroscopic measures of fragment correction accurately measure anterior, lateral, and posterior coverage when compared with postoperative radiographs? METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing PAO with a primary diagnosis of acetabular dysplasia. Between 2012 and 2014 two surgeons performed 287 PAOs with fluoroscopy. To be included in this retrospective study, patients had to be younger than 35 years old, have a primary diagnosis of dysplasia (not retroversion, Perthes, or skeletal dysplasia), have adequate radiographic and fluoroscopic imaging, be a primary PAO (not revision), and in the case of bilateral patients, only the first hip operated on in the study period was included. Based on these criteria, 46% of the PAOs performed were included here (133 of 287). A total of 109 (82%) of the patients were females (109 of 133), and the mean age of the patients represented was 24 years (SD, 7 years). Pre- and postoperative standing radiographs as well as intraoperative fluoroscopic images were reviewed and lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), Tönnis angle (TA), anterior center-edge angle (ACEA), anterior wall index (AWI), and posterior wall index (PWI) were measured. Two fellowship-trained hip preservation surgeons completed all measurements with one reader performing a randomized sample of 49 repeat measurements 4 weeks after the initial reading for purposes of calculating intraobserver reliability. Intra- and interrater reliability was assessed using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) model. Agreement between intraoperative fluoroscopic and postoperative radiographic measures was determined by estimating the ICC with 95% confidence intervals and by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Intrarater reliability was excellent (ICC > 0.75) for all measures and good for postoperative AWI (ICC = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.85). Interrater reliability was excellent (ICC > 0.75) for all measures except intraoperative TA (ICC = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84). Accuracy of fluoroscopy was good (0.60 < ICC < 0.75) for LCEA (ICC = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.83), TA (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.41-0.79), AWI (ICC = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.74), and PWI (ICC = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.35-0.85) and excellent (ICC > 0.75) for ACEA (ICC = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86). Bland-Altman analysis for systematic bias in the comparison between intraoperative fluoroscopy and postoperative radiography found the effect of such bias to be negligible (mean difference: LCEA 2°, TA 2°, ACEA 1°, AWI 0.02, PWI 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy is accurate in measuring correction in PAO. However, surgeons should take care not to undercorrect the posterior wall. Based on our study, intraoperative fluoroscopy may be used as an alternative to an intraoperative AP pelvis radiograph to judge final acetabular fragment correction with an experienced surgeon. However, more studies are needed including a properly powered direct comparative study of intraoperative fluoroscopy and intraoperative radiographs. Moreover, the impact of radiographic correction achieved during surgery should be studied to determine the implications for patient-reported outcomes and long-term survival of the hip. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, diagnostic study.

Acetabular Retroversion and Decreased Posterior Coverage Are Associated With Sports-related Posterior Hip Dislocation in Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Leverage of the femoral head against the acetabular rim may lead to posterior hip dislocation during sports activities in hips with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) deformity. Abnormal concavity of the femoral head and neck junction has been well described in association with posterior hip dislocation. However, acetabular morphology variations are not fully understood. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to compare the acetabular morphology in terms of acetabular version and coverage of the femoral head in adolescents who sustained a posterior hip dislocation during sports and recreational activities with a control group of patients without a history of hip disease matched by age and sex. METHODS: In this case-control study, we identified 27 adolescents with posterior hip dislocation sustained during sports or recreational activities who underwent a CT scan of the hips (study group) and matched them to patients without a history of hip disease being evaluated with CT for possible appendicitis (control group). Between 2001 and 2017, we treated 71 adolescents (aged 10-19 years old) for posterior hip dislocations. During the period in question, we obtained CT scans or MR images after closed reduction of a posterior hip dislocation. One patient was excluded because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome. Twenty-one patients who were in motor vehicle-related accidents were also excluded. Twelve patients were excluded because MRI was obtained instead of CT. Finally, three patients with no imaging after reduction and seven patients with inadequate CT reformatting were excluded. Twenty-seven patients (38%) had CT scans of suitable quality for analysis, and these 27 patients constituted the study group. We compared those hips with 27 age- and sex-matched adolescents who had CT scans for appendicitis and who had no history of hip pain or symptoms (control group). One orthopaedic surgeon and one pediatric musculoskeletal radiologist, not invoved in the care of the patients included in the study, measured the lateral center-edge angle, acetabular index, acetabular depth/width ratio, acetabular anteversion angle (10 mm from the dome and at the level of the center of the femoral heads), and the anterior and posterior sector angles in the dislocated hip; the contralateral uninvolved hip of the patients with hip dislocations; and both hips in the matched control patients. Both the study and control groups had 25 (93%) males with a mean age of 13 (± 1.7) years. Inter- and intrarater reliability of measurements was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). There was excellent reliability (ICC > 0.90) for the acetabular anteversion angle measured at the center of the femoral head, the acetabular version 10 mm from the dome, and the posterior acetabular sector angle. RESULTS: The mean acetabular anteversion angle (± SD) was lower in the study group at 10 mm from the acetabular dome (-0.4° ± 9° versus 4° ± 4°; mean difference -5°; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9 to -0.3; p = 0.015) and at the center of the femoral heads (10° ± 5° versus 14° ± 4°; mean difference -3°; 95% CI, -6 to -0.9; p = 0.003). A higher proportion of acetabula was severely retroverted in the study group (14 of 27 [52%]; 95% CI, 33%-71% versus four of 27 [15%]; 95% CI, 1%-28%; p = 0.006). The mean posterior acetabular sector angle was lower in the study group (82° ± 8° versus 90° ± 6°; mean difference -8°; 95% CI, -11 to -4; p < 0.001), whereas no difference was found for the anterior acetabular sector angle (65° ± 6° versus 65° ± 7°; mean difference 0.3°; 95% CI, -3 to 4; p = 0.944). There was no difference for the lateral center-edge angle (27° ± 6° versus 26° ± 5°; p = 0.299), acetabular index (5° ± 3° versus 6 ± 4°; p = 0.761), or acetabular depth/width ration (305 ± 30 versus 304 ± 31; p = 0.944) between groups. Acetabular anteversion angle at the center of the femoral heads (11° ± 4° versus 14° ± 4°; p = 0.006) and the posterior acetabular sector angle (86° ± 7 ° versus 91° ± 6°; p = 0.007) were lower in the contralateral uninvolved hips compared with control hips. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased acetabular anteversion angle and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head were associated with posterior dislocation of the hip in adolescents with sports-related injury even in the absence of a high-energy mechanism. Further studies are necessary to clarify whether a causative effect exists between acetabular and femoral morphology and the dislocation of the hip in patients with sports-related injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.