RESUMEN
Patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) are believed to present with increased anterior pelvic tilt to compensate for reduced anterior femoral head coverage. If true, pelvic tilt in dysplastic patients should be high preoperatively and decrease after correction with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). To date, the evolution of pelvic tilt in long-term follow-up after PAO has not been reported. We therefore asked the following questions: (i) is there a difference in pelvic tilt between patients with DDH and an asymptomatic control group? (ii) How does pelvic tilt evolve during long-term follow-up after Bernese PAO compared with before surgery? This study is a therapeutic study with the level of evidence III. We retrospectively compared preoperative pelvic tilt in 64 dysplastic patients (71 hips) with an asymptomatic control group of 20 patients (20 hips). In addition, immediate postoperative and long-term follow-up (at 18 ± 8 [range 7-34 years) pelvic tilt was assessed and compared. Dysplastic patients had a significantly higher mean preoperative pelvic tilt than controls [2.3 ± 5.3° (-11.2° to 16.4°) versus 1.1 ± 3.0° (-4.9 to 5.9), P = 0.006]. Mean pelvic tilt postoperatively was 1.5 ± 5.3° (-11.2 to 17.0º, P = 0.221) and at long-term follow-up was 0.4 ± 5.7° (range -9.9° to 20.9°, P = 0.002). Dysplastic hips undergoing PAO show a statistically significant decrease in pelvic tilt during long-term follow-up. However, given the large interindividual variability in pelvic tilt, the observed differences may not achieve clinical significance.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Assessment of AP acetabular coverage is crucial for choosing the right surgery indication and for obtaining a good outcome after hip-preserving surgery. The quantification of anterior and posterior coverage is challenging and requires either other conventional projections, CT, MRI, or special measurement software, which is cumbersome, not widely available and implies additional radiation. We introduce the "rule of thirds" as a promising alternative to provide a more applicable and easy method to detect an excessive or deficient AP coverage. This method attributes the intersection point of the anterior (posterior) wall to thirds of the femoral head radius (diameter), the medial third suggesting deficient and the lateral third excessive coverage. QUESTION/PURPOSE: What is the validity (area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratios [LR(+)/LR(-)], positive/negative predictive values [PPV, NPV]) for the rule of thirds to detect (1) excessive and (2) deficient anterior and posterior coverages compared with previously established radiographic values of under-/overcoverage using Hip2Norm as the gold standard? METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients between 2003 and 2015 from our institutional database who were referred to our hospital for hip pain and were potentially eligible for joint-preserving hip surgery. We divided the study group into six specific subgroups based on the respective acetabular pathomorphology to cover the entire range of anterior and posterior femoral coverage (dysplasia, overcoverage, severe overcoverage, excessive acetabular anteversion, acetabular retroversion, total acetabular retroversion). From this patient cohort, 161 hips were randomly selected for analysis. Anterior and posterior coverage was determined with Hip2Norm, a validated computer software program for evaluating acetabular morphology. The anterior and posterior wall indices were measured on standardized AP pelvis radiographs, and the rule of thirds was applied by one observer. RESULTS: The detection of excessive anterior and posterior acetabular wall using the rule of thirds revealed an AUC of 0.945 and 0.933, respectively. Also the detection of a deficient anterior and posterior acetabular wall by applying the rule of thirds revealed an AUC of 0.962 and 0.876, respectively. For both excessive and deficient anterior and posterior acetabular coverage, we found high specificities and PPVs but low sensitivities and NPVs. CONCLUSION: We found a high probability for an excessive (deficient) acetabular wall when this intersection point lies in the lateral (medial) third, which would qualify for surgical correction. On the other hand, if this point is not in the lateral (medial) third, an excessive (deficient) acetabular wall cannot be categorically excluded. Thus, the rule of thirds is very specific but not as sensitive as we had expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.