To propose a modified approach to measuring femoro-epiphyseal acetabular roof (FEAR) index while still abiding by its definition and biomechanical basis, and to compare the reliabilities of the two methods. To propose a classification for medial sourcil edges.

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients treated with periacetabular osteotomy and/or hip arthroscopy. A modified FEAR index was defined. Lateral center-edge angle, Sharp's angle, Tonnis angle on all hips, as well as FEAR index with original and modified approaches were measured. Intra- and inter-observer reliability were calculated as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for FEAR index with both approaches and other alignments. A classification was proposed to categorize medial sourcil edges. ICC for the two approaches across different sourcil groups were also calculated.

After reviewing 411 patients, 49 were finally included. Thirty-two patients (40 hips) were identified as having borderline dysplasia defined by an LCEA of 18 to 25 degrees. Intra-observer ICC for the modified method were good to excellent for borderline hips; poor to excellent for DDH; moderate to excellent for normal hips. As for inter-observer reliability, modified approach outperformed original approach with moderate to good inter-observer reliability (DDH group, ICC=0.636; borderline dysplasia group, ICC=0.813; normal hip group, ICC=0.704). The medial sourcils were classified to 3 groups upon its morphology. Type II(39.0%) and III(43.9%) sourcils were the dominant patterns. The sourcil classification had substantial intra-observer agreement (observer 4, kappa=0.68; observer 1, kappa=0.799) and moderate inter-observer agreement (kappa=0.465). Modified approach to FEAR index possessed greater inter-observer reliability in all medial sourcil patterns.

The modified FEAR index has better intra- and inter-observer reliability compared with the original approach. Type II and III sourcils accounts for the majority to which only the modified approach is applicable.

Aims

The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA.