EP1.39 Comparison of methods for assessment of the sagittal orientation of the acetabulum

Clicks: 15
ID: 330963
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #14 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The position of the acetabulum in the sagittal plane has been ignored in the field of hip imaging and preservation surgery. The purpose of the present study was to compare reliability of two methods to assess the sagittal orientation of the acetabulum (SOA) in a mixed population of patients with hip dysplasia, normal and excessive acetabular coverage. Methods The study group was composed of 63 patients/hips, 21 with acetabular dysplasia (lateral center edge angle ≤18°), 21 with acetabular overcoverage (LCEA ≥39°), and 21 with normal acetabular coverage (LCEA > 25 and < 39 degrees). Three independent readers measured the SOA using 3D CT using two techniques: (1) the horn method, which calculates the angle between a horizontal line and a line connecting the distal-most points of the articular acetabular horns, and (2) the acetabular center method, which measures the angle between a vertical line and a line through the center of an ellipse fitted to the acetabular rim and the midpoint of the acetabular notch. Both measurements were standardized using the anterior pelvic plane (APP) as a reference for pelvic tilt. The ICCs were calculated using a two-way random effects model with average measures (ICC(2,k)), where each subject's ratings from all three raters were modeled as a random sample. Intra-rater reliability was also calculated comparing measurements of the same reader performed more than 2 weeks apart. Results Inter-rater reliability was higher for the horn method in the entire sample (0.88) compared to the center method (0.83). In subgroup analyses, the horn method demonstrated superior consistency in hips with normal coverage (0.79 vs. 0.67) and overcoverage (0.88 vs. 0.71). In contrast, the acetabular center method showed slightly higher reliability in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) (0.89 vs. 0.86). Intra-rater reliability for the entire sample was 0.91 for the horn method and 0.88 for the center of acetabulum method. Conclusion The horn method demonstrates superior and more consistent inter-rater reliability across all hip morphologies compared to the acetabular center method. While both techniques are reliable for DDH patients, the horn method is the more robust approach for standardizing SOA measurements in normal and overcovered hips.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220369293 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Munif Hatem, Michael Pan, Soham Naik, Bryan Czajkowski, Travis H. Matheney, Young-Jo Kim, Michael Brian Millis, Sarah Dantzler Bixby
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.223
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.223
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.