Is Quantitative Radiographic Measurement of Acetabular Version Reliable in Anteverted and Retroverted Hips?
Authors: Yonga Ömer , Güven Melih , Akman Budak , Yüksel Korcan 
Published: July 2024

Background
The acetabular version is crucial for hip function, and its accurate assessment is necessary for treating patients with hip disorders. Current studies reveal discrepancies in the precision of quantitative radiographic measurements versus CT measurements, but there is a lack of focused analysis on anteverted versus retroverted hips. This study aims to fill this gap by directly comparing the reliability of these two methods in assessing varied hip configurations.

Questions/purposes
(1) How reliable are quantitative radiographic and CT methods in measuring the acetabular version angle? (2) Is there any difference in the reliability of acetabular version angle measurements using radiography compared with CT in anteverted and retroverted hips? (3) What is the extent of variation in acetabular version measurements when quantitative radiographic and CT methods are compared in anteverted and retroverted hips?

Methods
We searched our image archives for patients who had received both radiographs and CT scans between January 2020 and June 2022 and found 84 patients who met the criteria. From these patients, we selected those who presented with hip pain of different causes and who had no previous elective and/or hip trauma surgery, no hip dysplasia, and results from adequate radiographic examinations. Accordingly, 73% (61 of 84) of the patients were included in this study, and angle measurements were performed on both hips of these patients (122 hips). Standardized positioning was meticulously verified for all plain radiographs and CT scans utilized in the measurement process. We measured quantitative angles and assessed qualitative signs of retroversion, including crossover, posterior wall, and ischial spine findings. We considered a hip with at least one of these findings a retroverted hip, and the hips without these findings were included in the anteverted hip group. Three clinicians took measurements independently. Measurement reliability and agreement were examined using intraobserver and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with statistical analyses including paired and independent t-tests. To investigate the reliability of quantitative radiographic and CT methods, we assessed both intraobserver and interobserver agreements. To explore the reliability disparities in measuring the acetabular version via radiography and CT in anteverted and retroverted hips, we analyzed the agreement between measurements from both modalities in the hip groups. Furthermore, to evaluate the degree of variation in acetabular version measurements when comparing quantitative radiographic and CT methods in anteverted and retroverted hips, we utilized paired and independent t-tests to examine the measurement differences within these hip categories. The difference between radiographic and CT measurements was also evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis.

Results
Quantitative radiographic measurements showed intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities with ICCs of 0.87 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.91) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.82), respectively, and CT measurements demonstrated higher reliabilities with ICCs of 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.93) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92), respectively. The reliability of measuring the acetabular version in anteverted hips was moderate, with an ICC of 0.59 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.68). In contrast, retroverted hips showed an ICC of -0.41 (95% CI -1.17 to 0.08), indicating a lack of consistency between quantitative radiographic and CT measurements. Variation in measurement on plain radiographs in anteverted hips was less than that of retroverted hips (mean ± SD absolute difference between anteverted hips and retroverted hips 3° ± 3° versus 6° ± 4°; p = 0.0001), indicating greater variability in the radiographic measurement of retroverted hips. According to Bland-Altman analysis, we observed that the difference between radiographic and CT measurements was well outside the CI, especially in retroverted hips.

Conclusion
Although quantitative radiographic measurement demonstrates acceptable intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities, its precision is lower than that of CT-based measurements. Specifically, quantitative radiographic methods are prone to a larger margin of error in retroverted hips. For more precise assessments of acetabular version, especially in retroverted hips, we recommend using CT measurement instead of the radiographic method.

Level of Evidence
Level III, diagnostic study.