Acetabular Component Positioning Using Anatomic Landmarks of the Acetabulum

Certain roentgenographic signs have value in predicting the fixation of a cementless femoral component to bone by osseointegration. Other signs have value in predicting the gross stability of a cementless femoral component. The authors have determined the specificity and sensitivity of the signs for osseointegration in cases in which the histologic fixation has been confirmed after implant removal. The authors have also determined the specificity and sensitivity of the signs for gross implant stability in cases in which the stability has been confirmed at reoperation. Statistical methods were used to determine a numeric value for each of these roentgenographic signs, and these values were combined into a score. The score was divided into fixation by osseointegration and mechanical implant stability. The two scores were then combined into an overall score. When signs of osseointegration were present, the implant was always stable, and the overall scores were the highest. When signs of osseointegration were absent, the mechanical stability varied, and the scores were lower. A neutral or slightly negative score correlated with failed osseointegration but secondary successful implant stabilization. A very low negative score correlated with gross implant instability. To confirm the validity of the scoring system, the two-year postoperative score was determined for 1005 cases in which the clinical outcome was known. A strong correlation between the presence of symptoms and a low score confirmed the value of the scoring system for diagnosing implant loosening as the cause of symptoms. As a second test, the two-year and five-year postoperative results were compared in the same patients. A high two-year score correlated with durable implant stability through five years. A low two-year score correlated with a higher incidence of late symptomatic loosening.

Femoroacetabular impingement may occur in patients with so-called acetabular retroversion, which is seen as the crossover sign on standard radiographs. We noticed when a crossover sign was present the ischial spine commonly projected into the pelvic cavity on an anteroposterior pelvic radiograph. To confirm this finding, we reviewed the anteroposterior pelvic radiographs of 1010 patients. Nonstandardized radiographs were excluded, leaving 149 radiographs (298 hips) for analysis. The crossover sign and the prominence of the ischial spine into the pelvis were recorded and measured. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities were assessed. The presence of a prominent ischial spine projecting into the pelvis as diagnostic of acetabular retroversion had a sensitivity of 91% (95% confidence interval, 0.85%-0.95%), a specificity of 98% (0.94%-1.00%), a positive predictive value of 98% (0.94%-1.00%), and a negative predictive value of 92% (0.87%-0.96%). Greater prominence of the ischial spine was associated with a longer acetabular roof to crossover sign distance. The high correlation between the prominence of the ischial spine and the crossover sign shows retroversion is not just a periacetabular phenomenon. The affected inferior hemipelvis is retroverted entirely. Retroversion is not caused by a hypoplastic posterior wall or a prominence of the anterior wall only and this finding may influence management of acetabular disorders.