Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Hip

IS THE PELVIC TILT IN ACETABULAR RETROVERSION DIFFERENT TO ASYMPTOMATIC HIPS AND DOES IT CHANGE FOLLOWING ANTEVERTING PERIACETABULAR OSTEOTOMY?

The British Hip Society (BHS) Meeting, Nottingham, England, 27 February – 1 March 2019.



Abstract

Introduction

Acetabular retroversion (AR) can cause pain and early osteoarthritis. The sagittal pelvic position or pelvic tilt (PT)has a direct relationship with acetabular orientation. As the pelvis tilts anteriorly, PT reduces and AR increases. Therefore, AR may be a deformity secondary to abnormal PT (functional retroversion) or an anatomical deformity of the acetabulum and/or pelvic ring.

This study aims to:

  1. Define PT at presentation is in AR patients and whether this is different to controls (volunteers without pain).

  2. Assess whether the PT changes following a anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (PAO).

Methods

PT was measured for 51 patients who underwent a successful PAO. Mean age at PAO was 29±6 years and 48 were females. PT, pelvic incidence (PI), anterior pelvic plane (APP), and sacral slope (SS) were measured from CT data in 23 patients and compared to 44 (32±7 years old, 4 females) asymptomatic volunteers. Change in pelvic tilt in all 51 patients was measured using the Sacro-Femoral-Pubic angle (SFP), a validated method, from pre- and post-operative radiographs at a mean interval of 2.5(±2) years.

Results

In the AR group lateral centre edge angle changed from 30° (SD 8°) to 36° (SD 6°) and sourcil angle changed from 4° (±7°) to −1° (±7°). The cross over sign was present in 96.2% (49/51) pre-PAO (cross-over ratio: 0.42); it remained in 9 hips (17.6%) post-PAO but the crossover ratio reduced (0.16).

Mean PT in the asymptomatic group was 5° (SD 6°) and the same as the symptomatic group (4±4, p=0.256). However, in the symptomatic group, SS (38°(±9°)), APP (11°(±7°)) and PI (42° (±9°)) were different to the asymptomatic group (45° (SD 7°), p=0.002, 7° (±7°), p=0.021, and 50° (±9°), p=0.001 respectively).

The pelvic tilt pre-operatively was 3° (±4°) remained unchanged post-operatively (4°±4°, p=0.676).

Discussion

PT is not different in patients with symptomatic AR undergoing PAO when compared to a group of asymptomatic controls, nor does it change following PAO. This argues against the theory that AR is caused by abnormal PT. However, PI, SS and the APP are different suggesting that AR is a true morphological abnormality of the pelvis.


Email: