The influence of hip rotation on femoral offset in plain radiographs.

Philipp Lechler, Michael Frink, Aashish Gulati, David Murray, Tobias Renkawitz, Benjamin Bücking, Steffen Ruchholtz, Christoph Kolja Boese
Author Information
  1. Philipp Lechler: Department of Trauma , Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Giessen and Marburg, Marburg , Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Adequate restoration of femoral offset (FO) is critical for successful outcome after hip arthroplasty or fixation of hip fracture. Previous studies have identified that hip rotation influences the projected femoral offset (FOP) on plain anteroposterior (AP) radiographs, but the precise effect of rotation is unknown.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a novel method of assessing rotation-corrected femoral offset (FORC), tested its clinical application in 222 AP hip radiographs following proximal femoral nailing, and validated it in 25 cases with corresponding computed tomography (CT) scans.
RESULTS: The mean FORC was 57 (29-93) mm, which differed significantly (p < 0.001) from the mean FOP 49 (22-65) mm and from the mean femoral offset determined by the standard method: 49 (23-66) mm. FORC correlated closely with femoral offset assessed by CT (FOCT); the Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.97). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the assessment of FORC by AP hip radiographs correlating the repeated measurements of 1 observer and of 2 independent blinded observers was 1.0 and 1.0, respectively.
INTERPRETATION: Hip rotation affects the FOP on plain AP radiographs of the hip in a predictable way and should be adequately accounted for.

References

  1. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1952 May;34-B(2):181-6 [PMID: 12999892]
  2. J Arthroplasty. 2004 Jun;19(4 Suppl 1):108-10 [PMID: 15190563]
  3. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Nov;77(6):865-9 [PMID: 7593096]
  4. Int Orthop. 2004 Dec;28(6):347-53 [PMID: 15597171]
  5. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jun;24(4):646-51 [PMID: 18534445]
  6. J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Mar;26(3):148-54 [PMID: 21918483]
  7. J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jun;17(4 Suppl 1):17-22 [PMID: 12068397]
  8. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Jul;(388):125-34 [PMID: 11451111]
  9. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Jun;88(6):721-6 [PMID: 16720762]
  10. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000 Nov-Dec;20(6):736-9 [PMID: 11097245]
  11. Orthopedics. 2010 Nov 02;33(11):797 [PMID: 21053892]
  12. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Apr;94(4):477-82 [PMID: 22434462]
  13. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 May;95(3):210-9 [PMID: 19423418]
  14. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1955;86(3):345-60 [PMID: 13257518]
  15. J Orthop Trauma. 2001 Sep-Oct;15(7):475-81 [PMID: 11602829]
  16. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992 Aug;63(4):407-10 [PMID: 1529690]

MeSH Term

Arthrography
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
Bone Nails
Femur
Hip Fractures
Hip Joint
Hip Prosthesis
Humans
Models, Biological
Observer Variation
Range of Motion, Articular
Recovery of Function
Reproducibility of Results
Rotation
Tomography, X-Ray Computed

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0femoralhipoffsetradiographs0rotationAPFORCFOPplainmeanmm1ANDCT49correlationcoefficientBACKGROUNDPURPOSE:AdequaterestorationFOcriticalsuccessfuloutcomearthroplastyfixationfracturePreviousstudiesidentifiedinfluencesprojectedanteroposteriorpreciseeffectunknownPATIENTSMETHODS:developednovelmethodassessingrotation-correctedtestedclinicalapplication222followingproximalnailingvalidated25casescorrespondingcomputedtomographyscansRESULTS:5729-93differedsignificantlyp<00122-65determinedstandardmethod:23-66correlatedcloselyassessedFOCTSpearman9495%CI:88-097intraclassassessmentcorrelatingrepeatedmeasurementsobserver2independentblindedobserversrespectivelyINTERPRETATION:Hipaffectspredictablewayadequatelyaccountedforinfluence

Similar Articles

Cited By