Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 71 - 71
1 Mar 2021
Buddhdev P Vallim F Slattery D Balakumar J
Full Access

Abstract. Objective. To assess the prevalence of acetabular retroversion in patients presenting with Slipped Upper Femoral Epiphysis using both validated radiological signs and CT-angle measurements. Methods. A retrospective review of all cases involving surgical management for acute SUFE presenting to the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne were assessed from 2012–2018. Pre-operative plain radiographs were assessed for slip angle, validated radiological signs of retroversion (post wall/crossover/ischial spine sign) and standardised post-operative CT Scans were used to assess cranial and mid-acetabular version. Results. 116 SUFEs presented in 107 patients who underwent surgical intervention; 47 females and 60 boys, with an average age of 12.7 years (range 7.5–16.6 years). Complete radiological data was available for 91 patients (99 hips) with adequate axial CT imaging of both hips. 82% patients underwent pinning in situ (PIS) with subcapital realignment surgery (SRS) performed in 18% (slip angles >75°). Contralateral prophylactic hip PIS was performed in 72 patients (87%). On the slip side, 68% of patients had 1 or more radiological signs of retroversion in the slipped hip, with 60% on the contralateral side. The mean cranial and mid-acetabular version measurements were −8°(range −30 – 8°) and 10.5°(range −10 – 25°), respectively. Conclusions. Acetabular retroversion is rare in the normal population with studies reports ranging from 0–7%. This study showed an increased prevalence of 68% in SUFE patients, which is likely to be a primary anatomical abnormality, subsequently increasing the shear forces across the proximal femoral growth plate due to superior over-coverage. The resulting CAM lesion from SUFE in combination with the pincer lesion due to retroversion can lead to premature hip impingement and degeneration. Further larger studies are required to assess if acetabular retroversion is a true risk factor, and its role in helping guide management including prophylactic pinning. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 4, Issue 4 | Pages 50 - 55
1 Apr 2015
Sekimoto T Kurogi S Funamoto T Ota T Watanabe S Sakamoto T Hamada H Chosa E

Objectives

Excessive acetabular coverage is the most common cause of pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement. To date, an association between acetabular over-coverage and genetic variations has not been studied. In this study we investigated the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of paralogous Homeobox (HOX)9 genes and acetabular coverage in Japanese individuals to identify a possible genetic variation associated with acetabular over-coverage.

Methods

We investigated 19 total SNPs in the four HOX9 paralogs, then focused in detail on seven of those located in the 3’ untranslated region of HOXB9 (rs8844, rs3826541, rs3826540, rs7405887, rs2303485, rs2303486, rs79931349) using a case-control association study. The seven HOXB9 SNPs were genotyped in 316 subjects who had all undergone radiological examination. The association study was performed by both single-locus and haplotype-based analyses.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 87-B, Issue 7 | Pages 1012 - 1018
1 Jul 2005
Beck M Kalhor M Leunig M Ganz R

Recently, femoroacetabular impingement has been recognised as a cause of early osteoarthritis. There are two mechanisms of impingement: 1) cam impingement caused by a non-spherical head and 2) pincer impingement caused by excessive acetabular cover. We hypothesised that both mechanisms result in different patterns of articular damage. Of 302 analysed hips only 26 had an isolated cam and 16 an isolated pincer impingement. Cam impingement caused damage to the anterosuperior acetabular cartilage with separation between the labrum and cartilage. During flexion, the cartilage was sheared off the bone by the non-spherical femoral head while the labrum remained untouched. In pincer impingement, the cartilage damage was located circumferentially and included only a narrow strip. During movement the labrum is crushed between the acetabular rim and the femoral neck causing degeneration and ossification.

Both cam and pincer impingement lead to osteoarthritis of the hip. Labral damage indicates ongoing impingement and rarely occurs alone.