The aim of the current study was to assess the reliability of the Ottawa classification for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. In all, 134 consecutive hips that underwent periacetabular osteotomy were categorized using a validated software (Hip2Norm) into four categories of normal, lateral/global, anterior, or posterior. A total of 74 cases were selected for reliability analysis, and these included 44 dysplastic and 30 normal hips. A group of six blinded fellowship-trained raters, provided with the classification system, looked at these radiographs at two separate timepoints to classify the hips using standard radiological measurements. Thereafter, a consensus meeting was held where a modified flow diagram was devised, before a third reading by four raters using a separate set of 74 radiographs took place.Aims
Methods
Hip dysplasia has traditionally been classified based on the lateral center edge angle (LCEA). A recent meta-analysis demonstrated no definite consensus and a significant heterogeneity in LCEA values used in various studies to define hip dysplasia and borderline dysplasia. To overcome the shortcomings of classifying hip dysplasia based on just LCEA, a comprehensive classification for adult acetabular dysplasia (CCAD) was proposed to classify symptomatic hips into three discrete prototypical patterns of hip instability; lateral/global, anterior, or posterior. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of this recently published CCAD. One hundred thirty-four consecutive hips that underwent a PAO were categorized using a validated software (Hip2Norm) into four categories of normal, lateral/global, anterior or posterior. Based on the prevalence of individual dysplasia and using KappaSize R package version 1.1, seventy-four cases were necessary for reliability analysis: 44 dysplastic and 30 normal hips were randomly selected. Five surgeons (3 fellowship trained in hip preservation) did a first reading (Time 1) to classify the hips, followed by four raters for a second reading (Time 2) minimum two weeks apart. Thereafter, a consensus meeting was held where a simplified flow diagram was devised before a third reading by four raters using a separate set of 74 radiographs took place.Background
Methods
