MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977671927 · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000000900

Acetabular Version Increases During Adolescence Secondary to Reduced Anterior Femoral Head Coverage

2019· article· en· W2977671927 on OpenAlexaff
George Grammatopoulos, Paul Jamieson, Johanna Dobransky, Kawan Rakhra, Sasha Carsen, Paul E. Beaulé

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFemoral headAcetabulumSports medicineHead (geology)Orthopedic surgeryOrthodonticsAnatomySurgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acetabular version influences joint mechanics and the risk of impingement. Cross-sectional studies have reported an increase in acetabular version during adolescence; however, to our knowledge no longitudinal study has assessed version or how the change in version occurs. Knowing this would be important because characterizing the normal developmental process of the acetabulum would allow for easier recognition of a morphologic abnormality. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To determine (1) how acetabular version changes during adolescence, (2) calculate how acetabular coverage of the femoral head changed during this period, and (3) to identify whether demographic factors or hip ROM are associated with acetabular development. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of data from a longitudinal study included 17 volunteers (34 hips) with a mean (± SD) age of 11 ± 2 years; seven were male and 10 were female. The participants underwent a clinical examination of BMI and ROM and MRIs of both hips at recruitment and at follow-up (6 ± 2 years). MR images were assessed to determine maturation of the triradiate cartilage complex, acetabular version, and degree of the anterior, posterior, and superior acetabular sector angles (reflecting degree of femoral head coverage provided by the acetabulum anteriorly, posteriorly and superiorly respectively). An orthopaedic fellow (GG) and a senior orthopaedic resident (PJ) performed all readings in consensus; 20 scans were re-analyzed for intraobserver reliability. Thereafter, a musculoskeletal radiologist (KR) repeated measurements in 10 scans to test interobserver reliability. The intra- and interobserver interclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement were 0.85 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.91; p < 0.001) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.84), respectively. All volunteers underwent a clinical examination by a senior orthopaedic resident (PJ) to assess their range of internal rotation (in 90° of flexion) in the supine and prone positions using a goniometer. We tested investigated whether the change in anteversion and sector angles differed between genders and whether the changes were correlated with BMI or ROM using Pearson's coefficient. The triradiate cartilage complex was open (Grade I) at baseline and closed (Grade III) at follow-up in all hips. RESULTS: The acetabular anteversion increased, moving caudally further away from the roof at both timepoints. The mean (range) anteversion angle increased from 7° ± 4° (0 to 18) at baseline to 12° ± 4° (5 to 22) at the follow-up examination (p < 0.001). The mean (range) anterior sector angle decreased from 72° ± 8° (57 to 87) at baseline to 65° ± 8° (50 to 81) at the final follow-up (p = 0.002). The mean (range) posterior (98° ± 5° [86 to 111] versus 97° ± 5° [89 to 109]; p = 0.8) and superior (121° ± 4° [114 to 129] to 124° ± 5° [111 to 134]; p = 0.07) sector angles remained unchanged. The change in the anterior sector angle correlated with the change in version (rho = 0.5; p = 0.02). The change in version was not associated with any of the tested patient factors (BMI, ROM). CONCLUSIONS: With skeletal maturity, acetabular version increases, especially rostrally. This increase is associated with, and is likely a result of, a reduced anterior acetabular sector angle (that is, less coverage anteriorly, while the degree of coverage posteriorly remained the same). Thus, in patients were the normal developmental process is disturbed, a rim-trim might be an appropriate surgical solution, since the degree of posterior coverage is sufficient and no reorientation osteotomy would be necessary. However, further study on patients with retroversion (of various degrees) is necessary to characterize these observations further. The changes in version were not associated with any of the tested patient factors; however, further study with greater power is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207