SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2016 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 6

Adult acetabulo e pelvic parameters in Turkish society: A descriptive radiological study

Murat AYDIN
Cihan KİRCİL
ONUR POLAT
Murat ARIKAN
Bülent ERDEMLİ
Pages
623–627
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The prevalence ofposterior wall sign was 4.24% for the right hip and 4.19% for the left hip.Conclusion: This study has provided prevalence values of cross-over sign, posterior wall sign, acetabularindex, collodiaphyseal angle, CE angle and articulo-trochanteric distances of a healthy Turkish populationbetween the ages of 18 and 65 years.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to measure the prevalences of the acetabular index, collodiaphysealangle, CE angle, articulo-trochanteric distance, cross-over sign and posterior wall sign in healthy Turkishpeople, in order to shed light on the production of orthopedic medical products.Methods: In this study, both hips (a total of 3960 hips) of 1980 individuals (1178 males, 802 females)from nine different cities between the ages of 18 and 65 years were measured and statistically analyzed.Results: The right articulo-trochanteric distance of all participants was 19.67± 4.52 mm and the leftarticulo-trochanteric distance was 19.10± 4.58 mm.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The CE angle was 35.11±7.41in the right hip and35.37±6.76in the left hip.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The prevalence ofposterior wall sign was 4.24% for the right hip and 4.19% for the left hip.Conclusion: This study has provided prevalence values of cross-over sign, posterior wall sign, acetabularindex, collodiaphyseal angle, CE angle and articulo-trochanteric distances of a healthy Turkish populationbetween the ages of 18 and 65 years.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to measure the prevalences of the acetabular index, collodiaphysealangle, CE angle, articulo-trochanteric distance, cross-over sign and posterior wall sign in healthy Turkishpeople, in order to shed light on the production of orthopedic medical products.Methods: In this study, both hips (a total of 3960 hips) of 1980 individuals (1178 males, 802 females)from nine different cities between the ages of 18 and 65 years were measured and statistically analyzed.Results: The right articulo-trochanteric distance of all participants was 19.67± 4.52 mm and the leftarticulo-trochanteric distance was 19.10± 4.58 mm. The CE angle was 35.11±7.41in the right hip and35.37±6.76in the left hip. The acetabular index was 37.58±5.30in the right hip and 37.80±4.82inthe left hip. The collodiaphyseal angle was 138.60±8.27in the right and 137.84±8.01in the left hip.The prevalence of cross-over sign in the right hip was 6.46% and 6.66% for the left hip. The prevalence ofposterior wall sign was 4.24% for the right hip and 4.19% for the left hip.Conclusion: This study has provided prevalence values of cross-over sign, posterior wall sign, acetabularindex, collodiaphyseal angle, CE angle and articulo-trochanteric distances of a healthy Turkish populationbetween the ages of 18 and 65 years.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDIN, M., KİRCİL, C., POLAT, O., ARIKAN, M., ERDEMLİ, B. (2016). Adult acetabulo e pelvic parameters in Turkish society: A descriptive radiological study. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 6, 623–627. https://ajindex.com/articles/207841

References (17)

  1. Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint: with special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1939;58:7e135
  2. Fredensborg N. The CE angle of normal hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 1976;47(4): 403e405
  3. Tonnis D. Normal values of the hip joint for the evaluation of X-rays in children € and adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Sep;(119):39e47. PubMed PMID: 954321
  4. Humphry. The angle of the neck with the shaft of the femur at different periods of life and under different circumstances. J Anat Physiol. 1889 Jan;23(Pt 2): 273e282
  5. Stulberg SD, Coopermann DR, Wallensten R. The natural history of Legg-Calve- Perthes disease. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1981;63-A:1095e1108
  6. Edgren W. Coxa plana. A clinical and radiological investigation with particular reference to the importance of the metaphyseal changes for the final shape of the proximal part of the femur. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1965;(Suppl 84): 1e129
  7. Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1999;81:281e288
  8. Stulberg SD, Cordell LD, Harris WH, Ramsey PL, MacEwen GD. Unrecognised childhood hip disease: a major cause of idiopathic osteoarthritis of the hip. In: Proceedings of the Third Open Scientific Meeting of the Hip Society. St Louis (MO) Mosby. 1975:212e218
  9. Sharp IK. Acetabular dysplasia the acetabular angle. J Bone Jt Surg Br. May 1961;43-B(2):268e272
  10. Cooperman DR, Wallensten R, Stulberg SD. Acetabular dysplasia in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 May;(175):79e85
  11. Hoaglund VT, Low WD. Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and Hongkong Chinese. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;152:10e16
  12. Zaltz I, Kelly BT, Hetsroni I, Bedi A. The crossover sign overestimates acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Aug;471(8):2463e2470
  13. Gray's Anatomy the Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice, 40th ed. p. 1342. section 9, 2008
  14. Parsons FG. The character of English thigh bone. J Anat Physiol. 1913/1914;48: 238e267
  15. Lofgren L. Some anthropometric-anatomical measurements of the femur of Finns from the view point of surgery. Acta Chir Scand. 1956;110:477e484
  16. Mohd YB, Mohammed RAKad, Ahmad HZ, Azlin S, Azian AZ, Muhammad HL. Morphology study of the proximal femur in Malay population. Int J Morphol. 2011;29(4):1321e1325
  17. Koval KJ. Intramedullary nailing of proximal femur fractures. Am J Orthop. 200