Abstract
What is the present position? There is no doubt that the meaning of Kleinberg and Lieberman has been misconceived. With the passing of years their cautious conclusion concerning the acetabular index has been transformed into a firm conviction. Even so, it is apparent from the literature that the use of the acetabular index is a matter of controversy, and that, to a lesser degree, the normal values of the index are a matter of debate.
It is concluded that the measurement is not an absolute index of a predisposition to congenital dislocation of the hip and cannot be divorced from other radiological signs. Nevertheless, so long as there is a feeling of uncertainty about the most reliable early signs of congenital dislocation of the hip, it would be folly to ignore a high acetabular index, especially in an infant over six months of age.
It seems that to radiograph every infant at birth is not justified. The radiological signs at birth are not only unreliable because of problems of technique, but also equivocal because of the small size of the structures and the fact that they consist largely of cartilage. Until the radiographic technique is standardised it would be advisable to continue to regard 30 degrees as the upper limit of normal for the acetabular index in the newborn.
To make recommendations concerning treatment is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless it is worth stating that the presence of a high index alone is not necessarily regarded as an indication for immediate treatment. But an infant found to have a high acetabular index should be kept under close observation and should be thoroughly examined at regular intervals before the beginning of full weight bearing.
