Aims. To evaluate how abnormal proximal femoral anatomy affects different femoral version measurements in young patients with hip pain. Methods. First, femoral version was measured in 50 hips of symptomatic consecutively selected patients with hip pain (mean age 20 years (SD 6), 60% (n = 25) females) on preoperative CT scans using different measurement methods: Lee et al, Reikerås et al, Tomczak et al, and Murphy et al. Neck-shaft angle (NSA) and α angle were measured on coronal and radial CT images. Second, CT scans from three patients with femoral retroversion, normal femoral version, and anteversion were used to create 3D femur models, which were manipulated to generate models with different NSAs and different cam lesions, resulting in eight models per patient. Femoral version measurements were repeated on manipulated femora. Results. Comparing the different measurement methods for femoral version resulted in a maximum mean difference of 18° (95% CI 16 to 20) between the most proximal (Lee et al) and most distal (Murphy et al) methods. Higher differences in proximal and distal femoral version measurement techniques were seen in femora with greater femoral version (r > 0.46; p < 0.001) and greater NSA (r > 0.37; p = 0.008) between all measurement methods. In the parametric 3D manipulation analysis, differences in femoral version increased 11° and 9° in patients with high and normal femoral version, respectively, with increasing NSA (110° to 150°). Conclusion. Measurement of femoral version angles differ depending on the method used to almost 20°, which is in the range of the aimed surgical correction in derotational femoral osteotomy and thus can be considered clinically relevant. Differences between proximal and distal measurement methods further increase by increasing femoral version and NSA. Measurement methods that take the entire proximal femur into account by using distal landmarks may produce more sensitive measurements of these differences. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):759–766

Aims. Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an established treatment for acetabular dysplasia. It has also been proposed as a treatment for patients with acetabular retroversion. By reviewing a large cohort, we aimed to test whether outcome is equivalent for both types of morphology and identify factors that influenced outcome. Methods. A single-centre, retrospective cohort study was performed on patients with acetabular retroversion treated with PAO (n = 62 hips). Acetabular retroversion was diagnosed clinically and radiologically (presence of a crossover sign, posterior wall sign, lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) between 20° and 35°). Outcomes were compared with a control group of patients undergoing PAO for dysplasia (LCEA < 20°; n = 86 hips). Femoral version was recorded. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, and reoperation rates were measured. Results. The mean Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) preoperatively was 58.6 (SD 16.1) for the dysplastic hips and 52.5 (SD 12.7) for the retroverted hips (p = 0.145). Postoperatively, mean NAHS was 83.0 (SD 16.9) and 76.7 (SD 17.9) for dysplastic and retroverted hips respectively (p = 0.041). Difference between pre- and postoperative NAHS was slightly lower in the retroverted hips (18.3 (SD 22.1)) compared to the dysplastic hips (25.2 (SD 15.2); p = 0.230). At mean 3.5 years’ follow-up (SD 1.9), one hip needed a revision PAO and no hips were converted to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the retroversion group. In the control group, six hips (7.0%) were revised to THA. No differences in complications (p = 0.106) or in reoperation rate (p = 0.087) were seen. Negative predictors of outcome for patients undergoing surgery for retroversion were female sex, obesity, hypermobility, and severely decreased femoral anteversion. Conclusion. A PAO is an effective surgical intervention for acetabular retroversion and produces similar improvements when used to treat dysplasia. Femoral version should be routinely assessed in these patients and when extremely low (< 0°), as an additional procedure to address this abnormality may be necessary. Females with signs of hypermobility should also be consulted of the likely guarded improvement. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):757–764

Aims. The frequency of severe femoral retroversion is unclear in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). This study aimed to investigate mean femoral version (FV), the frequency of absolute femoral retroversion, and the combination of decreased FV and acetabular retroversion (AR) in symptomatic patients with FAI subtypes. Methods. A retrospective institutional review board-approved observational study was performed with 333 symptomatic patients (384 hips) with hip pain due to FAI evaluated for hip preservation surgery. Overall, 142 patients (165 hips) had cam-type FAI, while 118 patients (137 hips) had mixed-type FAI. The allocation to each subgroup was based on reference values calculated on anteroposterior radiographs. CT/MRI-based measurement of FV (Murphy method) and AV were retrospectively compared among five FAI subgroups. Frequency of decreased FV < 10°, severely decreased FV < 5°, and absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°) was analyzed. Results. A significantly (p < 0.001) lower mean FV was found in patients with cam-type FAI (15° (SD 10°)), and in patients with mixed-type FAI (17° (SD 11°)) compared to severe over-coverage (20° (SD 12°). Frequency of decreased FV < 10° was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in patients with cam-type FAI (28%, 46 hips) and in patients with over-coverage (29%, 11 hips) compared to severe over-coverage (12%, 5 hips). Absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°) was found in 13% (5 hips) of patients with over-coverage, 6% (10 hips) of patients with cam-type FAI, and 5% (7 hips) of patients with mixed-type FAI. The frequency of decreased FV< 10° combined with acetabular retroversion (AV < 10°) was 6% (8 hips) in patients with mixed-type FAI and 5% (20 hips) in all FAI patients. Of patients with over-coverage, 11% (4 hips) had decreased FV < 10° combined with acetabular retroversion (AV < 10°). Conclusion. Patients with cam-type FAI had a considerable proportion (28%) of decreased FV < 10° and 6% had absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°), even more for patients with pincer-type FAI due to over-coverage (29% and 13%). This could be important for patients evaluated for open hip preservation surgery or hip arthroscopy, and each patient requires careful personalized evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):557–565

Aims

Precise implant positioning, tailored to individual spinopelvic biomechanics and phenotype, is paramount for stability in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite a few studies on instability prediction, there is a notable gap in research utilizing artificial intelligence (AI). The objective of our pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of developing an AI algorithm tailored to individual spinopelvic mechanics and patient phenotype for predicting impingement.

Aims

The lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) is a plain radiological measure of superolateral cover of the femoral head. This study aims to establish the correlation between 2D radiological and 3D CT measurements of acetabular morphology, and to describe the relationship between LCEA and femoral head cover (FHC).

Aims

Pelvic tilt (PT) can significantly change the functional orientation of the acetabular component and may differ markedly between patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients with stiff spines who have little change in PT are considered at high risk for instability following THA. Femoral component position also contributes to the limits of impingement-free range of motion (ROM), but has been less studied. Little is known about the impact of combined anteversion on risk of impingement with changing pelvic position.

Aims

“Get It Right First Time” (GIRFT) and NHS England’s Best Practice Tariff (BPT) have published directives advising that patients over the ages of 65 (GIRFT) and 69 years (BPT) receiving total hip arthroplasty (THA) should receive cemented implants and have brought in financial penalties if this policy is not observed. Despite this, worldwide, uncemented component use has increased, a situation described as a ‘paradox’. GIRFT and BPT do, however, acknowledge more data are required to support this edict with current policies based on the National Joint Registry survivorship and implant costs.