How to Best Identify Acetabular Retroversion on Radiographs: Thresholds to Guide Clinical Practice.

Background: Acetabular retroversion is associated with impingement and instability. An adequate interpretation of acetabular version and coverage on radiographs is essential to determine the optimal treatment strategy (periacetabular osteotomy vs hip arthroscopic surgery). The crossover sign (COS) has been associated with the presence of acetabular retroversion, and the anterior wall index (AWI) and posterior wall index (PWI) assess anteroposterior acetabular coverage. However, the radiographic appearance of the acetabulum is sensitive to anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) morphology and pelvic tilt (PT), which differs between the supine and standing positions. Purpose: To (1) identify differences in the acetabular appearance between the supine and standing positions among patients presenting with hip pain; (2) determine factors (acetabular version, AIIS morphology, and spinopelvic characteristics) associated with the crossover ratio (COR), AWI, and PWI; and (3) define relevant clinical thresholds to guide management. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who presented to a hip preservation surgical unit (n = 134) were included (mean age, 35 ± 8 years; 58% female; mean body mass index, 27 ± 6). All participants underwent supine and standing anteroposterior pelvic radiography to assess the COS, COR, AWI, and PWI as well as standing lateral radiography to determine standing PT. Computed tomography was used to measure supine PT, acetabular version, and AIIS morphology. Acetabular version was measured at 3 transverse levels, corresponding to the 1-, 2-, and 3-o'clock positions. The correlation between radiographic characteristics (COR, AWI, and PWI) and acetabular version, AIIS morphology, and PT was calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to define thresholds for the COR, AWI, and PWI to identify retroversion (version thresholds: <10°, <5°, and <0°). Results: The COS was present in 55% of hips when supine and 30% when standing, with a mean difference in the COR of 12%. The supine COR (rho = −0.661) and AWI/PWI ratio (rho = −0.618) strongly correlated with acetabular version. The COS was more prevalent among patients with type 2 AIIS morphology (71%) than among those with type 1 AIIS morphology (43%) (P =.003). COR thresholds of 23% and 28% were able to identify acetabular version <5° (sensitivity = 81%; specificity = 80%) and <0° (sensitivity = 88%; specificity = 85%), respectively. An AWI/PWI ratio >0.6 was able to reliably identify acetabular version <0° (sensitivity = 83%; specificity = 84%). In the presence of a COR >30% and an AWI/PWI ratio >0.6, the specificity to detect retroversion was significantly increased (>90%). Conclusions: The presence of the COS was very common among patients with hip pain. False-positive results (high COR/normal version) may occur because of AIIS morphology/low PT. Relevant thresholds of COR >30% and AWI/PWI ratio >0.6 can help with diagnostic accuracy. In cases in which either the COR or AWI/PWI ratio is high, axial cross-sectional imaging can further help to avoid false-positive results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]