Influence of acetabular and femoral morphology on pelvic tilt

Abstract

AimsThe aim of this study was to investigate whether anterior pelvic plane-pelvic tilt (APP-PT) is associated with distinct hip pathomorphologies. We asked: is there a difference in APP-PT between young symptomatic patients being evaluated for joint preservation surgery and an asymptomatic control group? Does APP-PT vary among distinct acetabular and femoral pathomorphologies? And does APP-PT differ in symptomatic hips based on demographic factors?MethodsThis was an institutional review board-approved, single-centre, retrospective, case-control, comparative study, which included 388 symptomatic hips in 357 patients who presented to our tertiary centre for joint preservation between January 2011 and December 2015. Their mean age was 26 years (SD 2; 23 to 29) and 50% were female. They were allocated to 12 different morphological subgroups. The study group was compared with a control group of 20 asymptomatic hips in 20 patients. APP-PT was assessed in all patients based on supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using validated HipRecon software. Values in the two groups were compared using an independent-samples t-test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the influences of diagnoses and demographic factors on APP-PT. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for APP-PT was defined as > 1 SD.ResultsThere were no significant differences in APP-PT between the control group and the overall group (1.1° (SD 3.0°; -4.9° to 5.9°) vs 1.8° (SD 3.4°; -6.9° to 13.2°); p = 0.323). Acetabular retroversion and overcoverage groups showed higher mean APP-PTs compared with the control group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014) and were the only diagnoses with a significant influence on APP-PT in the stepwise multiple regression analysis. All differences were below the MCID. The age, sex, height, weight, and BMI showed no influence on APP-PT.ConclusionAPP-PT showed no radiologically significant variation across different pathomorphologies of the hip in patients being assessed for joint-preserving surgery.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):3–10.