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
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) describes abnormal bony contact of the proximal femur against the acetabulum. The term was first coined in 1999; however what is often overlooked is that descriptions of the morphology have existed in the literature for centuries. The aim of this paper is to delineate its origins and provide further clarity on FAI to shape future research. A non-systematic search on PubMed was performed using keywords such as “impingement” or “tilt deformity” to find early anatomical descriptions of FAI. Relevant references from these primary studies were then followed up.Aims
Methods
To validate the precision of digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and the model-based method (MBM) RSA with respect to benchmark marker-based (MM) RSA for evaluation of kinematics in the native hip joint. Seven human cadaveric hemipelves were CT scanned and bone models were segmented. Tantalum beads were placed in the pelvis and proximal femoral bone. RSA recordings of the hips were performed during flexion, adduction and internal rotation. Stereoradiographic recordings were all analyzed with DRR, MBM and MM. Migration results for the MBM and DRR with respect to MM were compared. Precision was assessed as systematic bias (mean difference) and random variation (Pitman’s test for equal variance).Objectives
Methods
