What Are the Sex-Based Differences of Acetabular Coverage Features in Hip Dysplasia?

Abstract

Background: Eccentric rotational acetabular osteotomy is performed to prevent osteoarthritis caused by developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). To achieve sufficient acetabular coverage, understanding the characteristics of acetabular coverage in DDH is necessary. However, the features of acetabular coverage in males with DDH remain unclear. We thought that the differences in acetabular coverage between females and males might be associated with the differences in pelvic morphology between the sexes.

Questions/purposes: (1) What are the differences in the acetabular coverage between females and males with DDH? (2) What are the differences in the rotations of the ilium and ischium between females and males with DDH? (3) What is the relationship between the rotation of the ilium and ischium and the acetabular coverage at each height in females and males with DDH?

Methods: Between 2016 and 2023, 114 patients (138 hips) underwent eccentric rotational acetabular osteotomy at our hospital. We excluded patients with Tönnis Grade 2 or higher, a lateral center-edge angle of 25º or more, and deformities of the pelvis or femur, resulting in 100 patients (122 hips) being included. For female patients (98 hips), the median (range) age was 40 years (10 to 58), and for the male patients (24 hips), it was 31 years (14 to 53). We used all patients' preoperative AP radiographs and CT data. The crossover sign, posterior wall sign, and pelvic width index were evaluated in AP radiographs. The rotation of the innominate bone in the axial plane was evaluated at two different heights, specifically at the slice passing through the anterior superior iliac spine and the slice through the pubic symphysis and ischial spine in CT data. Furthermore, we evaluated the anterior and posterior acetabular sector angles. Comparisons of variables related to innominate bone measurements and acetabular coverage measurements between females and males in each patient were performed. The correlations between pelvic morphology measurements and acetabular coverage were evaluated separately for females and males, and the results were subsequently compared to identify any sex-specific differences. For continuous variables, we used the Student t-test; for binary variables, we used the Fisher exact test. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: In the evaluation of AP radiographs, an indicator of acetabular retroversion-the crossover sign-showed no differences between the sexes, whereas the posterior wall sign (females 46% [45 of 98] hips versus males 75% [18 of 24] hips, OR 3.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 11.71]; p = 0.01) and pelvic width index less than 56% (females 1% [1 of 98] versus males 17% [4 of 24], OR 18.71 [95% CI 1.74 to 958.90]; p = 0.005) occurred more frequently in males than in females. There were no differences in the iliac rotation parameters, but the ischium showed more external rotation in males (females 30° ± 2° versus males 24° ± 1°; p < 0.001). Regarding acetabular coverage, no differences between females and males were observed in the anterior acetabular sector angles. In contrast, males showed smaller values than females for the posterior acetabular sector angles (85° ± 9° versus 91° ± 7°; p = 0.002). In females, a correlation was observed between iliac rotation and acetabular sector angles (anterior acetabular sector angles: r = -0.35 [95% CI -0.05 to 0.16]; p < 0.001, posterior acetabular sector angles: r = 0.42 [95% CI 0.24 to 0.57]; p < 0.001). Similarly, ischial rotation showed a correlation with both acetabular sector angles (anterior acetabular sector angles: r = -0.34 [95% CI -0.51 to -0.15]; p < 0.001 and posterior acetabular sector angles: r = 0.45 [95% CI 0.27 to 0.59]; p < 0.001). Thus, in females, we observed that external iliac rotation and ischial internal rotation correlated with increased anterior acetabular coverage and reduced posterior coverage. In contrast, although acetabular coverage in males showed a correlation with iliac rotation (anterior acetabular sector angles: r = -0.55 [95% CI -0.78 to -0.18]; p = 0.006 and posterior acetabular sector angles: r = 0.74 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.88]; p < 0.001), no correlation was observed with ischial rotation.

Conclusion: In males, acetabular retroversion occurs more commonly than in females and is attributed to their reduced posterior acetabular coverage. In females, an increase in the posterior acetabular coverage was correlated with the external rotation angle of the ischium, whereas in males, no correlation was found between ischial rotation and posterior acetabular coverage. In treating males with DDH via eccentric rotational acetabular osteotomy, it is essential to adjust bone fragments to prevent inadequate posterior acetabular coverage. Future studies might need to investigate the differences in acetabular coverage between males and females in various limb positions and consider the direction of bone fragment rotation.

Clinical relevance: Our findings suggest that males with DDH exhibit acetabular retroversion more frequently than females, which is attributed to the reduced posterior acetabular coverage observed in males. The smaller posterior acetabular coverage in males might be related to differences in ischial morphology between sexes. During eccentric rotational acetabular osteotomy for males with DDH, adequately rotating acetabular bone fragments might be beneficial to compensate for deficient posterior acetabular coverage.