Using traditional procedures, one would measure angles βp and βt with an ordinary protractor, then use equations 3 and 3.1 to calculate the true and planar versions. By equation 4, we make the first part of our protractor by marking αp (the version) with βp (the real angle). This special protractor can be used to measure αp directly, with no need for calculations (Fig 3). For the second part, we used an ordinary protractor to measure abduction. We explained how to measure αp directly, and a similar way to measure αt.
To use the protractor, we aligned the base line of the protractor with the long axis of the ellipse to read the planar version angle defined by point C (Fig 4A-B). To measure the true version angle, we aligned the base line of the protractor with Line EF, and then read the true version angle defined by point G (Fig 4C-D).
When measuring the planar version, part 2 of our protractor (an ordinary protractor) can be used simultaneously to measure the abduction angle. We can read this angle by the protractor of a horizontal line, which is parallel to the line passing through both teardrop landmarks, as indicated by the arrow labeled H (Fig 4A-B).
We determined the accuracy of our method by comparing it with the trigonometric method.5,6 We used software simulating 45 radiographs of THAs with 15 different anteversions ranging from 15°-29° (Fig 5A). We also collected 45 actual radiographs of THAs. These simulated and real radiographs were printed on paper. One of the authors (C.K.L.) measured the planar version of the 45 simulated and 45 real radiographs using the method described by Lewinnek et al5 (Fig 5B) and 1 week later with our method (Fig 5C). We randomly ordered the simulated radio- graphs on each measurement.
The two errors were compared with a two-sample Student's t test. Significance was set at the p < 0.05 level.
The median errors were within 1° with our method and 1.23° with the method of Lewinnek et al. Maximal errors were 3° with our method and 2.61° with the method of Lewinnek et al, and the mean errors were 0.96° and 1.2°, respectively. The standard deviation was 0.74° with our method and 0.57° with the method of Lewinnek et al. (Fig 6) There was no statistical difference between the two methods. For the real radiographs, the mean of absolute difference between the two methods was 1.34°, and the standard deviation was 1.13°.
Current methods of measuring the version angle require good quality radiographs, which means a nearly perfect AP projection without rotation on the transverse and longitudinal axes, and centered at the hip. If the projection is not perfect, there will be measurement errors. If there is a 5° rotation on the transverse axis, then it will cause a 5° error in the flexion angle. A change in one angle causes the other three angles to change. The changes in the other three angles (true version, planar version, and abduction) will be smaller than the flexion angle. Similarly, for the longitudinal axis, a 5° rotation will cause a 5° error in the true version. The error of the other three angles will be smaller. The detailed mathematical formulas were described by Murray.8
No solution exists for perfect patient positioning using the plain radiograph method. However, CT can solve this problem. With a virtual plane as described by McKibben (including the anterior superior iliac spines and the pubic tubercles), the software can measure the angle between the cup and plane.9 The method described by Olivecrona et al9 is excellent but unpractical because of the high cost of CT and the risk of radiation exposure. The relationship between position and version were discussed by Moritz et al.7
The greatest error in our method was finding point C (for planar version) and point F (for true version). In most patients, the femoral head obscured these points. Pradhan's solution was to measure the ellipse by the length of the perpendicular axis located ⅕ of the distance along the long axis from the apex to avoid the obscured region.10 The point is on middle part of the ellipse. It follows the rules of an ellipse which makes it easier to estimate. The mean error and standard deviation of error from Pradhan's data were 0.88 and 0.65, respectively.10
Bias in anteversion measurements using radiographs is inevitable because of measuring a three-dimensional object using a two-dimensional image projection. Some methods require using a ruler to measure two or more distances which then are used to make various calculations.5,10 For example, The method of Lewinnek et al needs measurement of the long and short axes of the ellipse.5 However, with every measurement, operational errors are inevitable. Therefore, we think our method is superior to that of Lewinnek et al. However, this could be the effect of operational error. Both methods have similar errors; possibly because the femoral head obscured measurement points in our method caused a similar error to the operational error in the method by Lewinnek et al. The method of Fabeck et al does not require ruler measurements, as it is determined by lines drawn on a radiograph.4 Our method requires only one measurement, which reduces the operational error. Widmer's method calculates the measurement using only one step, but there are errors with different abduction angles.12 Our method can measure without influencing abduction.
Our method is a simplified version of the method of Lewinnek et al.5 However, we only compared its ability to measure planar version. Measuring simulated and real radiographs shows little difference between the two methods. We can extend the result to the true version. When measuring a true version, we need to draw a horizontal line on the radiograph. However, it is still convenient when compared with other measurement methods. Our new pro- tractor allows measurement of true version, planar version, and abduction. Additional studies are needed to provide a gold standard for measurement.
1. AAOS. Total Hip Replacement. Available at: http://orthoinfo
. aaos.org. Accessed October 23, 2005.
2. Ackland MK, Bourne WB, Uhthoff HK. Anteversion of the acetabular cup: measurement of angle after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68:409-413
3. Coventry MB, Beckenbaugh RD, Nolan DR, Ilstrup DM. 2,012 total hip arthroplasties: a study of postoperative course and early complications. J Bone Joint Surg Am
4. Fabeck L, Farrokh D, Tolley M, Descamps PY, Gebhart M, Delince P. A method to measure acetabulum cup anteversion after total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Belg
5. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am
6. McLaren RH. Prosthetic hip angulations. Radiology
7. Moritz T, Ulrich L, Klaus-Arno S, Matthias W, Kai B, Frank L. Anatomic referencing of cup orientation in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res
8. Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:228-232
9. Olivecrona H, Weidenhielm L, Olivecrona L, Beckman MO, Stark A, Noz ME, Maguire GQ, Zeleznik MP, Svensson L, Jonson T. A new CT method for measuring cup orientation after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 10 patients. Acta Orthop Scand
10. Pradhan R. Planar anteversion of the acetabular cup as determined from plain anteroposterior radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Br
. 1999; 81:431-435.
11. Visser JD, Konings JG. A new method for measuring angles after total hip arthroplasty: a study of the acetabular cup and femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981;63B:556-559
© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
12. Widmer KH. A simplified method to determine acetabular cup anteversion from plain radiographs. J Arthroplasty