Which Acetabular Landmarks are the Most Useful for Measuring the Acetabular Index and Center-edge Angle in Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip? A Comparison of Two Methods.
Acetabulum
/ anatomy & histology
Adolescent
Anatomic Landmarks
/ diagnostic imaging
Area Under Curve
Child
Child, Preschool
Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Hip Joint
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Infant
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Odds Ratio
Predictive Value of Tests
ROC Curve
Radiography
Plastic Surgery Procedures
/ methods
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
8
5
2020
medline:
20
5
2021
entrez:
8
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The acetabular index and center-edge angle are widely used radiographic parameters. However, the exact landmarks for measuring these parameters are not clearly defined. Although their measurement is straightforward when the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof coincides with the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil, where these two landmarks disagree, recommendations have differed about which landmark should be used. Using a radiographic parameter with high reliability for predicting residual hip dysplasia helps avoid unnecessary treatment. We aimed to (1) compare two landmarks (the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof and the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil) for measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle with respect to intraobserver and interobserver reliability and the predictability of residual hip dysplasia in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and (2) evaluate longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape after closed reduction with the patient under general anesthesia. Between February 1985 and July 2006, we performed closed reduction with the patient under general anesthesia as well as cast immobilization in 116 patients with DDH. To be included in this study, a patient had to have dislocated-type DDH. We excluded patients with a hip dislocation associated with neuromuscular disease, arthrogryposis, or congenital anomalies of other organs or systems (n = 9); hips that underwent osteotomy within 1 year since closed reduction (n = 8); hips that underwent open reduction because of re-dislocation after closed reduction (n = 4); and hips with Type III or IV osteonecrosis according to Bucholz-Ogden's classification (n = 4). Ninety-one patients were eligible. We excluded 19% (17 of 91) of the patients, who were lost to follow-up before they were 8 years old, leaving 81% (74 of 91 patients) with full preoperative and most-recent data. Ninety-seven percent (72 patients) were girls and 3% (two patients) were boys. The mean ± standard deviation age was 14.0 months ± 6.4 months (range 3-40 months) at the time of closed reduction and 12.1 years ± 2.3 years (range 8.0-16.0 years) at the time of the latest follow-up examination, the duration of which averaged 11 years ± 2.2 years (range 6.5-15.4 years). To investigate whether longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape differed among hips with DDH, contralateral hips, and control hips, we identified control participants after searching our hospital's database for patients with a diagnosis of congenital idiopathic hemihypertrophy from October 2000 to November 2006 who had AP hip radiographs taken at 3 years old and then at older than 8 years. From 29 patients who met these criteria, we randomly excluded two male patients to match for sex because girls were predominant in the DDH group. We excluded another female patient from the control group because of a hip radiograph that revealed unacceptable rotation. Eventually, 26 patients were assigned to the control group. Control patients consisted of 24 girls (92%) and two boys (8%). The demographic characteristics of control patients was not different from those of 67 patients with unilateral DDH, except for laterality (left-side involvement: 64% [43 of 67] in the DDH group versus 38% [10 of 26] in the control group; odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.8]; p = 0.035). The acetabular index and center-edge angle at 3 years old were measured using the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof (AIB and CEAB) and the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil (AIS and CEAS). The treatment outcome was classified as satisfactory (Severin Grade I or II) or unsatisfactory (Grade III or IV). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to compare the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of each method. We compared the predictability of residual hip dysplasia of each method at 3 years old as a proxy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve. To evaluate longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape, we compared the proportion of hips showing coincidence of the two landmarks between 3 years old and the latest follow-up examination. To investigate whether the longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape differs among hips with DDH, contralateral hips, and control hips, we compared the proportion of coincidence among the three groups at both timepoints. Intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities were higher for the CEAB (ICC 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98 and ICC 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92, respectively) than for the CEAS (ICC 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88 and ICC 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79, respectively). The AIB (AUC 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) and CEAB (AUC 0.841; 95% CI, 0.748-0.933) predicted residual hip dysplasia better than the AIS (AUC 0.776; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88) and CEAS (AUC 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively). The proportion of hips showing coincidence of the two landmarks increased from 3 years old to the latest follow-up examination in hips with DDH (37% [25 of 67] to 81% [54 of 67]; OR = 8.8 [95% CI, 3.1-33.9]; p < 0.001), contralateral hips (42% [28 of 67] to 85% [57 of 67]; OR = 16.5 [95% CI, 4.2-141.9]; p < 0.001), and control hips (38% [10 of 26] to 88% [23 of 26]; OR = 14 [95% CI, 2.1-592.0]; p = 0.001). The proportion of coincidence in hips with DDH was not different from that in the contralateral hips and control hips at both timepoints. Measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle at 3 years old using the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof has higher reliability for predicting residual hip dysplasia than that using the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil in patients with DDH treated with closed reduction. Measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle at an early age using the lateral end of the sourcil may lead to overdiagnosis of residual hip dysplasia and unnecessary treatment. Level III, diagnostic study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The acetabular index and center-edge angle are widely used radiographic parameters. However, the exact landmarks for measuring these parameters are not clearly defined. Although their measurement is straightforward when the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof coincides with the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil, where these two landmarks disagree, recommendations have differed about which landmark should be used. Using a radiographic parameter with high reliability for predicting residual hip dysplasia helps avoid unnecessary treatment.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
We aimed to (1) compare two landmarks (the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof and the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil) for measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle with respect to intraobserver and interobserver reliability and the predictability of residual hip dysplasia in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and (2) evaluate longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape after closed reduction with the patient under general anesthesia.
METHODS
Between February 1985 and July 2006, we performed closed reduction with the patient under general anesthesia as well as cast immobilization in 116 patients with DDH. To be included in this study, a patient had to have dislocated-type DDH. We excluded patients with a hip dislocation associated with neuromuscular disease, arthrogryposis, or congenital anomalies of other organs or systems (n = 9); hips that underwent osteotomy within 1 year since closed reduction (n = 8); hips that underwent open reduction because of re-dislocation after closed reduction (n = 4); and hips with Type III or IV osteonecrosis according to Bucholz-Ogden's classification (n = 4). Ninety-one patients were eligible. We excluded 19% (17 of 91) of the patients, who were lost to follow-up before they were 8 years old, leaving 81% (74 of 91 patients) with full preoperative and most-recent data. Ninety-seven percent (72 patients) were girls and 3% (two patients) were boys. The mean ± standard deviation age was 14.0 months ± 6.4 months (range 3-40 months) at the time of closed reduction and 12.1 years ± 2.3 years (range 8.0-16.0 years) at the time of the latest follow-up examination, the duration of which averaged 11 years ± 2.2 years (range 6.5-15.4 years). To investigate whether longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape differed among hips with DDH, contralateral hips, and control hips, we identified control participants after searching our hospital's database for patients with a diagnosis of congenital idiopathic hemihypertrophy from October 2000 to November 2006 who had AP hip radiographs taken at 3 years old and then at older than 8 years. From 29 patients who met these criteria, we randomly excluded two male patients to match for sex because girls were predominant in the DDH group. We excluded another female patient from the control group because of a hip radiograph that revealed unacceptable rotation. Eventually, 26 patients were assigned to the control group. Control patients consisted of 24 girls (92%) and two boys (8%). The demographic characteristics of control patients was not different from those of 67 patients with unilateral DDH, except for laterality (left-side involvement: 64% [43 of 67] in the DDH group versus 38% [10 of 26] in the control group; odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.8]; p = 0.035). The acetabular index and center-edge angle at 3 years old were measured using the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof (AIB and CEAB) and the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil (AIS and CEAS). The treatment outcome was classified as satisfactory (Severin Grade I or II) or unsatisfactory (Grade III or IV). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to compare the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of each method. We compared the predictability of residual hip dysplasia of each method at 3 years old as a proxy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve. To evaluate longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape, we compared the proportion of hips showing coincidence of the two landmarks between 3 years old and the latest follow-up examination. To investigate whether the longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape differs among hips with DDH, contralateral hips, and control hips, we compared the proportion of coincidence among the three groups at both timepoints.
RESULTS
Intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities were higher for the CEAB (ICC 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98 and ICC 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92, respectively) than for the CEAS (ICC 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88 and ICC 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79, respectively). The AIB (AUC 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) and CEAB (AUC 0.841; 95% CI, 0.748-0.933) predicted residual hip dysplasia better than the AIS (AUC 0.776; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88) and CEAS (AUC 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively). The proportion of hips showing coincidence of the two landmarks increased from 3 years old to the latest follow-up examination in hips with DDH (37% [25 of 67] to 81% [54 of 67]; OR = 8.8 [95% CI, 3.1-33.9]; p < 0.001), contralateral hips (42% [28 of 67] to 85% [57 of 67]; OR = 16.5 [95% CI, 4.2-141.9]; p < 0.001), and control hips (38% [10 of 26] to 88% [23 of 26]; OR = 14 [95% CI, 2.1-592.0]; p = 0.001). The proportion of coincidence in hips with DDH was not different from that in the contralateral hips and control hips at both timepoints.
CONCLUSIONS
Measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle at 3 years old using the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof has higher reliability for predicting residual hip dysplasia than that using the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil in patients with DDH treated with closed reduction. Measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle at an early age using the lateral end of the sourcil may lead to overdiagnosis of residual hip dysplasia and unnecessary treatment.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, diagnostic study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32379138
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001289
pmc: PMC7431232
pii: 00003086-202009000-00029
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2120-2131Références
J Pediatr Orthop. 2016 Jan;36(1):96-100
pubmed: 25705807
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Jul;79(4):570-5
pubmed: 9250741
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Feb;472(2):665-73
pubmed: 23943527
J Pediatr Orthop. 2002 Mar-Apr;22(2):228-31
pubmed: 11856937
J Pediatr Orthop. 1982 Oct;2(4):397-400
pubmed: 6754756
J Pediatr Orthop. 2000 Nov-Dec;20(6):709-17
pubmed: 11097241
J Pediatr Orthop. 1991 Jul-Aug;11(4):498-501
pubmed: 1860951
J Pediatr Orthop. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(5):518-23
pubmed: 18580365
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2014 May;23(3):237-43
pubmed: 24394595
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979 Jan;61(1):112-8
pubmed: 759420
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Jul 21;92(8):1732-7
pubmed: 20660236
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Aug;86(6):876-86
pubmed: 15330030
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988 Nov;70(5):733-6
pubmed: 3192570
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Nov;79(11):1731-8
pubmed: 9384434
J Pediatr Orthop. 2017 Jul/Aug;37(5):328-331
pubmed: 26422392
J Pediatr Orthop. 2013 Sep;33(6):628-34
pubmed: 23812143
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Nov;90 Suppl 4:47-66
pubmed: 18984718
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Feb;67(2):195-202
pubmed: 3968109
J Pediatr Orthop. 2018 May/Jun;38(5):260-265
pubmed: 27669038
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Jun 1;98(11):952-7
pubmed: 27252440
J Pediatr Orthop. 2003 Nov-Dec;23(6):703-7
pubmed: 14581770
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 May;(242):98-103
pubmed: 2706864
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990 Mar;72(2):190-6
pubmed: 2312554
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Dec;470(12):3499-505
pubmed: 22903283
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979 Jan;61(1):125-30
pubmed: 759422
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Sep;(119):99-106
pubmed: 954330
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 May;474(5):1180-8
pubmed: 26272657