Synchronous imaging of pelvic geometry and muscle morphometry: a pilot study of pelvic retroversion using upright MRI.

This study investigated feasibility of imaging lumbopelvic musculature and geometry in tandem using upright magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in asymptomatic adults, and explored the effect of pelvic retroversion on lumbopelvic musculature and geometry. Six asymptomatic volunteers were imaged (0.5 T upright MRI) in 4 postures: standing, standing pelvic retroversion, standing 30° flexion, and supine. Measures included muscle morphometry [cross-sectional area (CSA), circularity, radius, and angle] of the gluteus and iliopsoas, and pelvic geometry [pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), L3-S1 lumbar lordosis (LL)] L3-coccyx. With four volunteers repeating postures, and three raters assessing repeatability, there was generally good repeatability [ICC(3,1) 0.80-0.97]. Retroversion had level dependent effects on muscle measures, for example gluteus CSA and circularity increased (up to 22%). Retroversion increased PT, decreased SS, and decreased L3-S1 LL, but did not affect PI. Gluteus CSA and circularity also had level-specific correlations with PT, SS, and L3-S1 LL. Overall, upright MRI of the lumbopelvic musculature is feasible with good reproducibility, and the morphometry of the involved muscles significantly changes with posture. This finding has the potential to be used for clinical consideration in designing and performing future studies with greater number of healthy subjects and patients.

Evaluation of glenohumeral range of motion and humeral retroversion at ages after major change and differences in wrestlers.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to present the change in humeral retroversion (HR) angle (HRA) that occurs in childhood and young adulthood and the potential developmental difference that is observed in wrestlers. METHODS: HRA of dominant and non-dominant shoulders (DSHRA and NDSHRA, respectively) were measured using ultrasonography in a group of 30 wrestlers who started wrestling before the age of 13 years (Group 1), a group of 30 young adults, aged between 16-20 years, who were not actively engaged in any branch of overhead sports (Group 2) and a group of children aged between 11-13 years and not actively engaged in any branch of overhead sports (Group 3). Range of motion (ROM) degrees of dominant and non-dominant shoulders in all groups were compared within each group and between the groups. RESULTS: DSHRA (mean: 88.73°, 88.93° and 89.40°) values were significantly higher than NDSHRA (mean: 81.13°, 81.83° and 84.37°) values (p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p < 0,05) in Groups I, II and III, respectively. Internal rotation and total ROM degrees of the dominant shoulder in Group 1 and 3 were higher than those in Group 2. CONCLUSION: There is no significant change in terms of HRA in people aged between 11-13 and 16-20 years because of natural development or wrestling. DSHRA values are higher than NDSHRA ones. In contrast to the shoulders of throwers, the shoulders of wrestlers are characterized by an increase in internal rotation, described as "Wrestler's shoulder." LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

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.

Does the Rule of Thirds Adequately Detect Deficient and Excessive Acetabular Coverage?

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.

The Retroverted Dens: A Review of its Anatomy, Terminology, and Clinical Significance.

BACKGROUND: Little attention has been given to the retroverted dens within the existing medical literature. However, this finding can have a clinical impact, especially in patients with Chiari malformation type I (CM1), as it can have consequences for further treatment. METHODS: Using standard search engines, we performed a literature review of anatomical, radiologic, and clinical studies as well as pathologic and surgical considerations related to the retroverted dens. Key words for our search included retroverted dens; retroflexed dens; odontoid retroflexion; posterior inclination; and tilted dens. RESULTS: A retroverted dens is most commonly found in the pediatric population in relation to CM1. Research has demonstrated that high degree of dens angulation can result in significant anterior brain stem compression with the need for both anterior and posterior decompression in patients with symptomatic CM1. CONCLUSIONS: A greater degree of dens angulation can lead to neurologic symptoms secondary to spinomedullary compression. Therefore, correct measurements are essential as such findings can influence presurgical planning.

Pelvic Compensation in Sagittal Malalignment: How Much Retroversion Can the Pelvis Accommodate?

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: Investigate how differing degrees of pelvic incidence (PI) modulate the recruitment of pelvic tilt (PT) in response to similar amounts of sagittal malalignment as measured by T1-Pelvic Angle (TPA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Past research has shown that some patients do not recruit PT in response to sagittal malalignment. Given the anatomic relationship between PI and PT, we sought to determine whether differing PI is associated with variable recruitment of PT. METHODS: Single-center retrospective study of 2077 patients undergoing full body radiographs and TPA>10°. Five groups of patients (Very Low, Low, Average, High, and Very High PI) were defined utilizing PI ranges on a Gaussian distribution. Linear regression (LR) evaluated correlation of TPA to PT within each PI group. Multivariate LR evaluated whether correlation between TPA and PT differed between each PI group. RESULTS: Mean PT increased with increasing levels of PI (P < 0.05). Within the full cohort, PT correlated with TPA (r = 0.80, P < 0.001). Multivariate LR revealed significant differences between slopes and intercepts of the linear relationship between PT and TPA within the PI groups. Compared with patients with an average PI, patients with Very Low PI had 3.4° lower PT while holding TPA constant (P < 0.001). Further, patients with Very High PI displayed a PT of 1.9° higher than patients with an Average PI while holding TPA constant (P = 0.01). A similar difference of -1.8°, and 1.2° with respect to the Average PI group was observed in the Low and High PI groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Means and standard deviations of PT at varying levels of TPA were defined for PI groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first study which demonstrated that PI is associated with varied recruitment of PT while maintaining constant sagittal malalignment. The results reported herein are intended to allow surgeons to assess a patient's magnitude of compensatory PT for an individual patient's PI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Glenoid retroversion is an important factor for humeral head centration and the biomechanics of posterior shoulder stability.

PURPOSE: Glenoid retroversion is a known independent risk factor for recurrent posterior instability. The purpose was to investigate progressive angles of glenoid retroversion and their influence on humeral head centration and posterior translation with intact, detached, and repaired posterior labrum in a cadaveric human shoulder model. METHODS: A total of 10 fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were investigated for this study. After CT- canning, the glenoids were aligned parallel to the floor, with the capsule intact, and the humerus was fixed in 60° of abduction and neutral rotation. Version of the glenoid was created after wedge resection from posterior and fixed with an external fixator throughout the testing. Specimens underwent three conditions: intact, detached, and repaired posterior labrum, while version of the glenoid was set from + 5° anteversion to - 25° retroversion by 5° increments. Within the biomechanical setup, the glenohumeral joint was axially loaded (22 N) to center the joint. At 0° of glenoid version and intact labrum, the initial position was used as baseline and served as point zero of centerization. After cyclic preloading, posterior translation force (20 N) was then applied by a material testing machine, while start and endpoints of the scapula placed on an X-Y table were measured. RESULTS: The decentralization of the humeral head at glenoid version angles of 5°, 10°, 15°, and 20° of retroversion and 5° of anteversion was significantly different (P < 0.001). Every increment of 5° of retroversion led to an additional decentralization of the humeral head overall by (average ± SD) 2.0 mm ± 0.3 in the intact and 2.0 mm ± 0.7 in the detached labrum condition. The repaired showed significantly lower posterior translation compared to the intact condition at 10° (P = 0.012) and 15° (P < 0.01) of retroversion. In addition, CT measured parameters (depth, diameter, and native version) of the glenoid showed no correlation with angle of dislocation of each specimen. CONCLUSION: Bony alignment in terms of glenoid retroversion angle plays an important role in joint centration and posterior translation, especially in retroversion angles greater than 10°. Isolated posterior labrum repair has a significant effect on posterior translation in glenoid retroversion angles of 5° and 10°. Bony correction of glenoid version may be considered to address posterior shoulder instability with retroversion > 15°.

"Dynamic knee valgus" - Are we measuring what we think we're measuring? An evaluation of static and functional knee calibration methods for application in gait and clinical screening tests of the overhead squat and hurdle step.

BACKGROUND: "Dynamic knee valgus" has been identified as a risk factor for significant knee injuries, however, the limits and sources of error associated with existing 3D motion analysis methods have not been well established. RESEARCH QUESTION: What effect does the use of differing static and functional knee axis orientation methods have on the observed knee angle outputs for the activities of gait, overhead squatting and a hurdle step? METHODS: A pre-existing dataset collected from one season (September 2015-May 2016) as part of a prospective observational longitudinal study was used. A secondary analysis of data for 24 male footballers, from a single British University football team, was conducted in order to evaluate the effect of static (conventional gait model) and dynamic (constrained and unconstrained mDynaKAD) methods on knee joint kinematics for flexion-extension and valgus-varus angles. RESULTS: No single calibration method consistently achieved both the highest flexion and lowest valgus angle for all tests. The constrained and unconstrained mDynaKAD methods achieved superior alignment of the knee medio-lateral axis compared to the conventional gait model, when the movement activity served as its own calibration. The largest mean difference between methods for sagittal and coronal plane kinematics was less than 4° and 14° respectively. Cross-talk could not account for all variation within the results, highlighting that soft tissue artefact, associated with larger muscle volumes and movements, can influence kinematics results. SIGNIFICANCE: When considering the trade-off between achieving maximum flexion and minimal valgus angle, the results indicate that the mDynaKAD methods performed best when the selected movement activity served as its own calibration method for all activities. Clinical decision making processes obtained through use of these methods should be considered in light of the model errors associated with cross-talk and effect of soft tissue artefact.

The Reliability of Commonly Used Radiographic Parameters in the Evaluation of the Pre-Arthritic Hip: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Radiographs play a central role in the evaluation of the extent of arthritic change and the quantification of morphological parameters characteristic of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and/or dysplasia. Reporting of these parameters is widespread in the literature, occasionally as an instrument for data pooling in collaborative research endeavors. Yet, the metrological properties of commonly used radiographic descriptors of acetabular and femoral architecture relevant to the field of hip preservation have not been reviewed systematically. The purpose of the present review was twofold: (1) to identify the current body of data available on the reliability of commonly used radiographic descriptors of the pre-arthritic hip and (2) to collate best practices and methodological pearls and pitfalls from the existing investigations that have explored the reliability of these radiographic measures. METHODS: Article screening methodology involved an extensive search of 2 databases (PubMed Central, Embase). Metrological reliability data and best practices and frequencies with which these practices have been reported in existing investigations were extracted from the methods of the included studies. The radiographic parameters that were chosen as a focus for the present review were based on a discussion among a number of experienced hip-preservation surgeons. RESULTS: Forty-three articles met all inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Eleven recurring components of study design were isolated from the included investigations as being critical for minimizing bias in the assessment of the reliability of these radiographic morphological parameters. Sixteen (37.2%) of the included studies reported the use of at least 1 quality-control measure for ensuring radiographic integrity. The radiographic parameters with the most reliability data included the lateral center-edge angle (22 studies), the Tönnis angle (14 studies), and the alpha angle (18 studies). Categorical markers of acetabular retroversion and the extent of osteoarthritis have been less-frequently studied with respect to their reliability, with the exception of the crossover sign, which was evaluated in 11 of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: The radiographic parameter with the most metrological evidence in support of its reliability was the lateral center-edge angle (with 22 [100%] of 22 studies reporting acceptable reliability), whereas the Tönnis grade of osteoarthritis consistently demonstrated subpar interrater and intrarater reliability. Side-arm investigations for testing reliability may be needed by individual studies to prove the validity of data-pooling practices as collaborative endeavors continue to become more widespread.

Acetabular Global Insufficiency in Patients with Down Syndrome and Hip-Related Symptoms: A Matched-Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The etiology of hip instability in Down syndrome is not completely understood. We investigated the morphology of the acetabulum and femur in patients with Down syndrome and compared measurements of the hips with those of matched controls. METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) images of the pelvis of 42 patients with Down syndrome and hip symptoms were compared with those of 42 age and sex-matched subjects without Down syndrome or history of hip disease who had undergone CT for abdominal pain. Each of the cohorts had 23 male and 19 female subjects. The mean age (and standard deviation) in each cohort was 11.3 ± 5.3 years. The lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), acetabular inclination angle (IA), acetabular depth-width ratio (ADR), acetabular version, and anterior and posterior acetabular sector angles (AASA and PASA) were compared. The neck-shaft angle and femoral version were measured in the patients with Down syndrome only. The hips of the patients with Down syndrome were further categorized as stable (n = 21) or unstable (n = 63) for secondary analysis. RESULTS: The hips in the Down syndrome group had a smaller LCEA (mean, 10.8° ± 12.6° compared with 25.6° ± 4.6°; p < 0.0001), a larger IA (mean, 17.4° ± 10.3° compared with 10.9° ± 4.8°; p < 0.0001), a lower ADR (mean, 231.9 ± 56.2 compared with 306.8 ± 31.0; p < 0.0001), a more retroverted acetabulum (mean acetabular version as measured at the level of the centers of the femoral heads [AVC], 7.8° ± 5.1° compared with 14.0° ± 4.5°; p < 0.0001), a smaller AASA (mean, 55.0° ± 9.9° compared with 59.7° ± 7.8°; p = 0.005), and a smaller PASA (mean, 67.1° ± 10.4° compared with 85.2° ± 6.8°; p < 0.0001). Within the Down syndrome cohort, the unstable hips showed greater femoral anteversion (mean, 32.7° ± 14.6° compared with 23.6° ± 10.6°; p = 0.002) and worse global acetabular insufficiency compared with the stable hips. No differences between the unstable and stable hips were found with respect to acetabular version (mean AVC, 7.8° ± 5.5° compared with 7.6° ± 3.8°; p = 0.93) and the neck-shaft angle (mean, 133.7° ± 6.7° compared with 133.2° ± 6.4°; p = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Down syndrome and hip-related symptoms had more retroverted and shallower acetabula with globally reduced coverage of the femoral head compared with age and sex-matched subjects. Hip instability among those with Down syndrome was associated with worse global acetabular insufficiency and increased femoral anteversion, but not with more severe acetabular retroversion. No difference in the mean femoral neck-shaft angle was observed between the stable and unstable hips in the Down syndrome cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does Postoperative Glenoid Retroversion Affect the 2-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: While glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head decentering are common preoperative features of severely arthritic glenohumeral joints, the relationship of postoperative glenoid component retroversion to the clinical results of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unclear. Studies have indicated concern for inferior outcomes when glenoid components are inserted in 15° or more retroversion. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a population of patients undergoing TSA in whom no specific efforts were made to change the version of the glenoid, we asked whether at 2 years after surgery patients having glenoid components implanted in 15° or greater retroversion had (1) less improvement in the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score and lower SST scores; (2) higher percentages of central peg lucency, higher Lazarus radiolucency grades, higher mean percentages of posterior decentering, and more frequent central peg perforation; or (3) a greater percentage having revision for glenoid component failure compared with patients with glenoid components implanted in less than 15° retroversion. METHODS: Between August 24, 2010 and October 22, 2013, information for 201 TSAs performed using a standard all-polyethylene pegged glenoid component were entered in a longitudinally maintained database. Of these, 171 (85%) patients had SST scores preoperatively and between 18 and 36 months after surgery. Ninety-three of these patients had preoperative radiographs in the database and immediate postoperative radiographs and postoperative radiographs taken in a range of 18 to 30 months after surgery. Twenty-two patients had radiographs that were inadequate for measurement at the preoperative, immediate postoperative, or latest followup time so that they could not be included. These excluded patients did not have substantially different mean age, sex distribution, time of followup, distribution of diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, alcohol use, smoking history, BMI, or history of prior surgery from those included in the analysis. Preoperative retroversion measurements were available for 11 (11 shoulders) of the 22 excluded patients. For these 11 shoulders, the mean (± SD) retroversion was 15.8° ± 14.6°, five had less than 15°, and six had more than 15° retroversion. We analyzed the remaining 71 TSAs, comparing the 21 in which the glenoid component was implanted in 15° or greater retroversion (mean ± SD, 20.7° ± 5.3°) with the 50 in which it was implanted in less than 15° retroversion (mean ± SD, 5.7° ± 6.9°). At the 2-year followup (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 0.6 years; range, 18-36 months), we determined the latest SST scores and preoperative to postoperative improvement in SST scores, the percentage of maximal possible improvement, glenoid component radiolucencies, posterior humeral head decentering, and percentages of shoulders having revision surgery. Radiographic measurements were performed by three orthopaedic surgeons who were not involved in the care of these patients. The primary study endpoint was the preoperative to postoperative improvement in the SST score. RESULTS: With the numbers available, the mean (± SD) improvement in the SST (6.7 ± 3.6; from 2.6 ± 2.6 to 9.3 ± 2.9) for the retroverted group was not inferior to that for the nonretroverted group (5.8 ± 3.6; from 3.7 ± 2.5 to 9.4 ± 3.0). The mean difference in improvement between the two groups was 0.9 (95% CI, - 2.5 to 0.7; p = 0.412). The percent of maximal possible improvement (%MPI) for the retroverted glenoids (70% ± 31%) was not inferior to that for the nonretroverted glenoids (67% ± 44%). The mean difference between the two groups was 3% (95% CI, - 18% to 12%; p = 0.857). The 2-year SST scores for the retroverted (9.3 ± 2.9) and the nonretroverted glenoid groups (9.4 ± 3.0) were similar (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, - 1.1 to 1.4; p = 0.697). No patient in either group reported symptoms of subluxation or dislocation. With the numbers available, the radiographic results for the retroverted glenoid group were similar to those for the nonretroverted group with respect to central peg lucency (four of 21 [19%] versus six of 50 [12%]; p = 0.436; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.4-6.9), average Lazarus radiolucency scores (0.5 versus 0.7, Mann-Whitney U p value = 0.873; Wilcoxon rank sum test W = 512, p value = 0.836), and the mean percentage of posterior humeral head decentering (3.4% ± 5.5% versus 1.6% ± 6.0%; p = 0.223). With the numbers available, the percentage of patients with retroverted glenoids undergoing revision (0 of 21 [0%]) was not inferior to the percentage of those with nonretroverted glenoids (three of 50; [6%]; p = 0.251). CONCLUSION: In this small series of TSAs, postoperative glenoid retroversion was not associated with inferior clinical results at 2 years after surgery. This suggests that it may be possible to effectively manage arthritic glenohumeral joints without specific attempts to modify glenoid version. Larger, longer-term studies will be necessary to further explore the results of this approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Dynamic and static knee alignment at baseline predict structural abnormalities on MRI associated with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis after 2 years.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic and static varus alignment, both, have been reported as risk factors associated with structural progression of knee osteoarthritis. However the association of none of the static and dynamic alignment with structural, clinical, and functional progression associated with knee osteoarthritis has not been assessed yet in a longitudinal study. METHODS: Forty-seven women with early and established medial knee osteoarthritis were evaluated. Static and dynamic alignment as well as MRI detected structural features, clinical, and functional characteristics of patients were assessed at baseline and at 2 years follow-up. Associations between baseline static and dynamic alignment with structural, functional, and clinical characteristics at the time of entry, as well as the changes over 2 years were evaluated. FINDINGS: Both static and dynamic varus alignment at baseline were significantly associated with osteoarthritis related tibio-femoral joint structural abnormalities detected on MRI, at the time of entry. Only the magnitude of varus thrust at baseline was predictive of the changes in the presence of meniscal maceration over two years. None of the static or dynamic measures of knee joint alignment were associated with clinical characteristics associated with medial knee osteoarthritis. INTERPRETATION: The key finding of this study is that both frontal plane dynamic and static alignment, are associated with structural abnormalities in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis.

Femoral head retroposition as a potential compensatory mechanism in patients with a severe mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis.

OBJECTIVE: Severe mismatch between pelvic incidence (PI) and lumbar lordosis (LL) leads to extra anterior displacement of the gravity line. The objective of this study is to investigate whether femoral head retroposition is a separate compensatory mechanism responsible for the extra anterior displacement. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Based on the values of PI and LL, 94 patients were divided into the PI-LL match group (PI-LL ≤ 0°), the mild PI-LL mismatch group (20°> PI-LL >0°), and the severe PI-LL mismatch group (PI-LL ≥ 20°). A series of parameters including PI, LL, PI-LL, thoracic kyphosis (TK), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), knee flexion angle (KFA), tibial obliquity angle (TOA), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), S1 overhang, femoral head shift (FHS), and pelvic shift (PS) were measured and compared among the three groups. RESULTS: The severe PI-LL mismatch group exhibited significantly greater PI, PI-LL, PT, KFA, SVA, PS, and FHS, and less LL and TK, compared with the control and mild PI-LL mismatch group. The mild PI-LL mismatch group had significantly greater PI-LL, PT, KFA, TOA, and S1 overhang, and less LL and SS than the control group. SS, TOA, and S1 overhang in the severe PI-LL mismatch group differed significantly from that in the control group, but did not differ significantly from that in the mild PI-LL mismatch group. CONCLUSION: Femoral head retroposition is an entirely separate compensatory mechanism and, in this study, participated in the compensation for the anterior displacement of the gravity line induced by extra-sagittal spinal malalignment in patients with severe PI-LL mismatch.

Periacetabular Osteotomy Provides Higher Survivorship Than Rim Trimming for Acetabular Retroversion.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular retroversion can cause impaction-type femoroacetabular impingement leading to hip pain and osteoarthritis. It can be treated by anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) or acetabular rim trimming with refixation of the labrum. There is increasing evidence that acetabular retroversion is a rotational abnormality of the entire hemipelvis and not a focal overgrowth of the anterior acetabular wall, which favors an anteverting PAO. However, it is unknown if this larger procedure would be beneficial in terms of survivorship and Merle d'Aubigné scores in a midterm followup compared with rim trimming. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked if anteverting PAO results in increased survivorship of the hip compared with rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation in patients with symptomatic acetabular retroversion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, comparative study evaluating the midterm survivorship of two matched patient groups with symptomatic acetabular retroversion undergoing either anteverting PAO or acetabular rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation. Acetabular retroversion was defined by a concomitantly present positive crossover, posterior wall, and ischial spine sign. A total of 279 hips underwent a surgical intervention for acetabular retroversion at our center between 1997 and 2012 (166 periacetabular osteotomies, 113 rim trimmings through surgical hip dislocation). A total of 99 patients (60%) were excluded from the PAO group and 56 patients (50%) from the rim trimming group because they had any of several prespecified conditions (eg, dysplasia or pediatric conditions 61 [37%] for the PAO group and two [2%] for the rim trimming group), matching (10 [6%]/10 [9%] hips), deficient records (10 [6%]/13 [12%] hips), or the patient declined or was lost to followup (18 [11%]/31 [27%] hips). This left 67 hips (57 patients) that underwent anteverting PAO and 57 hips (52 patients) that had acetabular rim trimming. The two groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, body mass index, preoperative ROM, preoperative Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score, radiographic morphology of the acetabulum (except total and anterior acetabular coverage), alpha angle, Tönnis grade of osteoarthritis, and labral and chondral lesions on the preoperative MRI. During the period in question, we generally performed PAO from 1997 to 2003. With the availability of surgical hip dislocation and labral refixation, we generally performed rim trimming from 2004 to 2010. With growing knowledge of the underlying pathomorphology, anteverting PAOs became more common again around 2007 to 2008. A minimum followup of 2 years was required for this study. Failures were included at any time. The median followup for the anteverting PAO group was 9.5 years (range, 2-17.4 years) and 6.8 years (range, 2.2-10.5 years) for the rim trimming group (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed using the following endpoints at 5 and 10 years: THA, radiographic progression of osteoarthritis by one Tönnis grade, and/or Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score < 15 points. RESULTS: Although the 5-year survivorship of the two groups was not different with the numbers available (86% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 76%-94%] for anteverting PAO versus 86% [95% CI, 76%-96%] for acetabular rim trimming), we found increased survivorship at 10 years in hips undergoing anteverting PAO for acetabular retroversion (79% [95% CI, 68%-90%]) compared with acetabular rim trimming (23% [95% CI, 6%-40%]) at 10 years (p < 0.001). The drop in the survivorship curve for the acetabular rim trimming through surgical hip dislocation group started at Year 6. The main reason for failure was a decreased Merle d'Aubigné score. CONCLUSIONS: Anteverting PAO may be the more appropriate treatment for hips with substantial acetabular retroversion. This may be the result of reduction of an already smaller lunate surface of hips with acetabular retroversion through rim trimming. However, rim trimming may still benefit hips with acetabular retroversion in which only one or two of the three signs are positive. Future randomized studies should compare these treatments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The Relationship Between Early-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis and Lower-Extremity Alignment, Joint Laxity, and Subjective Scores of Pain, Stiffness, and Function.

CONTEXT: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating disease that affects an estimated 27 million Americans. Changes in lower-extremity alignment and joint laxity have been found to redistribute the medial and/or lateral loads at the joint. However, the effect that changes in anteroposterior knee-joint laxity have on lower-extremity alignment and function in individuals with knee OA remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine anteroposterior knee-joint laxity, lower-extremity alignment, and subjective pain, stiffness, and function scores in individuals with early-stage knee OA and matched controls and to determine if a relationship exists among these measures. DESIGN: Case control. SETTING: Sports-medicine research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 18 participants with knee OA and 18 healthy matched controls. INTERVENTION: Participants completed the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis questionnaire and were tested for total anteroposterior knee-joint laxity (A-P) and knee-joint alignment (ALIGN). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: WOMAC scores, A-P (mm), and ALIGN (°). RESULTS: A significant multivariate main effect for group (Wilks' Λ = 0.30, F7,26 = 8.58, P < .0001) was found. Knee-OA participants differed in WOMAC scores (P < .0001) but did not differ from healthy controls on ALIGN (P = .49) or total A-P (P = .66). No significant relationships were identified among main outcome measures. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that participants with early-stage knee OA had worse pain, stiffness, and functional outcome scores than the matched controls; however, ALIGN and A-P were no different. There was no association identified among participants' subjective scores, ALIGN, or A-P measures in this study.

Does Salter innominate osteotomy predispose the patient to acetabular retroversion in adulthood?

BACKGROUND: Salter innominate osteotomy has been identified as an effective additional surgery for the dysplastic hip. However, because in this procedure, the distal segment of the pelvis is displaced laterally and anteriorly, it may predispose the patient to acetabular retroversion. The degree to which this may be the case, however, remains incompletely characterized. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked, in a group of pediatric patients with acetabular dysplasia who underwent Salter osteotomy, whether the operated hip developed (1) acetabular retroversion compared with contralateral unaffected hips; (2) radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis; or (3) worse functional scores. (4) In addition, we asked whether femoral head deformity resulting from aseptic necrosis was a risk factor for acetabular retroversion. METHODS: Between 1971 and 2001, we performed 213 Salter innominate osteotomies for unilateral pediatric dysplasia, of which 99 hips (47%) in 99 patients were available for review at a mean of 16 years after surgery (range, 12-25 years). Average patient age at surgery was 4 years (range, 2-9 years) and the average age at the most recent followup was 21 years (range, 18-29 years). Acetabular retroversion was diagnosed based on the presence of a positive crossover sign and prominence of the ischial spine sign at the final visit. The center-edge angle, acetabular angle of Sharp, and acetabular index were measured at preoperative and final visits. Contralateral unaffected hips were used as controls, and statistical comparison was made in each patient. Clinical findings, including Harris hip score (HHS) and the anterior impingement sign, were recorded at the final visit. RESULTS: Patients were no more likely to have a positive crossover sign in the surgically treated hips (20 of 99 hips [20%]) than in the contralateral control hips (17 of 99 hips [17%]; p = 0584). In addition, the percentage of positive prominence of the ischial spine sign was not different between treated hips (22 of 99 hips [22%]) and contralateral hips (18 of 99 hips [18%]; p = 0.256). Hips that had a positive crossover or prominence of the ischial spine sign in the operated hips were likely also to have a positive crossover sign or prominence of the ischial spine sign in the unaffected hips (16 of 20 hips [80%] crossover sign, 17 of 22 hips [77%] prominence of the ischial spine sign). At the final visit, five hips (5%) showed osteoarthritic change; one of the five hips (20%) showed positive crossover and prominence of the ischial spine signs, and the remaining four hips showed negative crossover and prominence of the ischial spine signs. There was no significant difference in HHS between the crossover-positive and crossover-negative patient groups nor in the prominence of the ischial spine-positive and prominence of the ischial spine-negative patient groups (crossover sign, p = 0.68; prominence of the ischial spine sign, p = 0.54). Hips with femoral head deformity (25 of 99 hips [25%]) were more likely to have acetabular retroversion compared with hips without femoral-head deformity (crossover sign, p = 0.029, prominence of the ischial spine sign, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Salter innominate osteotomy does not consistently cause acetabular retroversion in adulthood. We propose that retroversion of the acetabulum is a result of intrinsic development of the pelvis in each patient. A longer-term followup study is needed to determine whether retroverted acetabulum after Slater innominate osteotomy is a true risk factor for early osteoarthritis. Femoral head deformity is a risk factor for subsequent acetabular retroversion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The thrower's shoulder.

Throwers, or athletes who engage in repetitive overhead motions, are a unique subset of athletes that experience distinct shoulder injuries. Athletes engaged in baseball comprise the majority of patients seeking orthopedic care for throwing related injuries. Injuries specific to throwers most commonly involve the labrum and the undersurface of the rotator cuff. In addition, tissue changes in both the anterior and posterior glenohumeral capsule are common with repetitive overhead motions. These capsular changes alter. This article will examine the pathomechanics of injuries to throwers, elaborate means of diagnoses of cuff and labral injury and discuss recent advances in both non-operative and operative interventions, including preventative principles.

The biomechanical effect of increased valgus on total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study.

The effects of valgus load on cadaveric knees following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were investigated using a custom testing system. TKAs were performed on 8 cadaveric knees and tested at 0°, 30°, and 60° knee flexion in both neutral and 5° valgus. Fuji pressure sensitive film was used to quantify contact areas and pressures and MCL strain was determined using a Microscribe digitizing system. Lateral tibiofemoral pressures increased (P < 0.05) at all knee flexion angles with valgus loading. Patellofemoral contact characteristics did not change significantly (P > 0.05). Significant increases in strain were observed along the anterior and posterior border of the MCL at all knee flexion angles. These findings suggest that valgus loading increases TKA joint contact pressures and MCL strain with increasing knee flexion which may increase implant instability.

Augmented wedge-shaped glenoid component for the correction of glenoid retroversion: a finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study undertook a computational analysis of a wedged glenoid component for correction of retroverted glenoid arthritic deformity to determine whether a wedge-shaped glenoid component design with a built-in correction for version reduces excessive stresses in the implant, cement, and glenoid bone. Recommendations for correcting retroversion deformity are asymmetric reaming of the anterior glenoid, bone grafting of the posterior glenoid, or a glenoid component with posterior augmentation. Eccentric reaming has the disadvantages of removing normal bone, reducing structural support for the glenoid component, and increasing the risk of bone perforation by the fixation pegs. Bone grafting to correct retroverted deformity does not consistently generate successful results. METHODS: Finite element models of 2 scapulae models representing a normal and an arthritic retroverted glenoid were implanted with a standard glenoid component (in retroversion or neutral alignment) or a wedged component. Glenohumeral forces representing in vivo loading were applied and stresses and strains computed in the bone, cement, and glenoid component. RESULTS: The retroverted glenoid components generated the highest compressive stresses and decreased cyclic fatigue life predictions for trabecular bone. Correction of retroversion by the wedged glenoid component significantly decreased stresses and predicted greater bone fatigue life. The cement volume estimated to survive 10 million cycles was the lowest for the retroverted components and the highest for neutrally implanted glenoid components and for wedged components. CONCLUSION: A wedged glenoid implant is a viable option to correct severe arthritic retroversion, reducing the need for eccentric reaming and the risk for implant failure.

Influence of glenoid component design and humeral component retroversion on internal and external rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaver study.

BACKGROUND: A common disadvantage of reverse shoulder arthroplasty is limitation of the range of arm rotation. Several changes to the prosthesis design and implantation technique have been suggested to improve rotation range of motion (ROM). HYPOTHESIS: Glenoid component design and degree of humeral component retroversion influence rotation ROM after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Aequalis Reversed™ shoulder prosthesis (Tornier Inc., Edina, MN, USA) was implanted into 40 cadaver shoulders. Eight glenoid component combinations were tested, five with the 36-mm sphere (centred seating, eccentric seating, inferior tilt, centred with a 5-mm thick lateralised spacer, and centred with a 7-mm thick lateralised spacer) and three with the 42-mm sphere (centred with no spacer or with a 7-mm or 10-mm spacer). Humeral component position was evaluated with 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, and 40° of retroversion. External and internal rotation ROMs to posterior and anterior impingement on the scapular neck were measured with the arm in 20° of abduction. RESULTS: The large glenosphere (42 mm) was associated with significantly (P<0.05) greater rotation ROMs, particularly when combined with a lateralised spacer (46° internal and 66° external rotation). Rotation ROMs were smallest with the 36-mm sphere. Greater humeral component retroversion was associated with a decrease in internal rotation and a significant increase (P<0.05) in external rotation. The best balance between rotation ROMs was obtained with the native retroversion, which was estimated at 17.5° on average in this study. DISCUSSION: Our anatomic study in a large number of cadavers involved a detailed and reproducible experimental protocol. However, we did not evaluate the variability in scapular anatomy. Earlier studies of the influence of technical parameters did not take humeral component retroversion into account. In addition, no previous studies assessed rotation ROMs. CONCLUSION: Rotation ROM should be improved by the use of a large-diameter glenosphere with a spacer to lateralise the centre of rotation of the gleno-humeral joint, as well as by positioning the humeral component at the patient's native retroversion value.