Background: Patients with borderline acetabular dysplasia are a controversial patient population in hip preservation, as some have primarily impingement-based symptoms and others have instability-based symptoms. Borderline dysplasia is most commonly defined as a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of 20° to 25°. However, its prevalence has not been well established in the literature. Purpose: To (1) define the prevalence of borderline hip dysplasia in the general population as well as in populations presenting with hip pain using a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and (2) describe differences between male and female patients as well as differences in prevalence from that of classic acetabular dysplasia. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using search terms to capture borderline dysplasia, or studies reporting prevalence by LCEA. The search yielded 1932 results, of which 11 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the final systematic review. Studies were grouped by patient cohort as (1) asymptomatic general population, (2) asymptomatic targeted population (eg, athletes in a specific sport), and (3) symptomatic hip pain population. The reporting of prevalence rates by subject or by hip was recorded. In a study, the rates of borderline dysplasia were compared with those of classic acetabular dysplasia (LCEA, <20°). Results: The 11 studies included 19,648 hips (11,754 patients). In the asymptomatic general population, the pooled estimate of the prevalence of borderline dysplasia was 19.8% by subject and 23.3% by hip (range, 16.7%-46.0%). The targeted subpopulation group included 236 athletes with subgroups in ballet, football, hockey, volleyball, soccer, and track and field with prevalence ranging from 17.8% to 51.1%. The prevalence of borderline dysplasia in groups presenting with hip pain was 12.8% (range, 12.6%-16.0%). Borderline acetabular dysplasia was 3.5 times more common than classic acetabular dysplasia in the asymptomatic general population. Conclusion: This study demonstrated a prevalence of borderline dysplasia of 19.8% to 23.3% in the asymptomatic general population. Additionally, an estimated prevalence of 12.8% of hips in symptomatic patients highlights the common decision-making challenges in this population.

Background Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) increases acetabular coverage of the femoral head and medializes the hip’s center, restoring normal joint biomechanics. Past studies have reported data regarding the degree of medialization achieved by PAO, but measurement of medialization has never been validated through a comparison of imaging modalities or measurement techniques. The ilioischial line appears to be altered by PAO and may be better visualized at the level of the inferior one-third of the femoral head, thus, an alternative method of measuring medialization that begins at the inferior one-third of the femoral head may be beneficial. Questions/purposes (1) What is the true amount and variability of medialization of the hip’s center that is achieved with PAO? (2) Which radiographic factors (such as lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] and acetabular inclination [AI]) correlate with the degree of medialization achieved? (3) Does measurement of medialization on plain radiographs at the center of the femoral head (traditional method) or inferior one-third of the femoral head (alternative method) better correlate with true medialization? (4) Are intraoperative fluoroscopy images different than postoperative radiographs for measuring hip medialization? Methods We performed a retrospective study using a previously established cohort of patients who underwent low-dose CT after PAO. Inclusion criteria for this study included PAO as indicated for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia, preoperative CT scan, and follow-up between 9 months and 5 years. A total of 333 patients who underwent PAO from February 2009 to July 2018 met these criteria. Additionally, only patients who were between 16 and 50 years old at the time of surgery were included. Exclusion criteria included prior ipsilateral surgery, femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), pregnancy, neuromuscular disorder, Perthes-like deformity, inadequate preoperative CT, and inability to participate. Thirty-nine hips in 39 patients were included in the final study group; 87% (34 of 39) were in female patients and 13% (5 of 39 hips) were in male patients. The median (range) age at the time of surgery was 27 years (16 to 49). Low-dose CT images were obtained preoperatively and at the time of enrollment postoperatively; we also obtained preoperative and postoperative radiographs and intraoperative fluoroscopic images. The LCEA and AI were assessed on plain radiographs. Hip medialization was assessed on all imaging modalities by an independent, blinded assessor. On plain radiographs, the traditional and alternative methods of measuring hip medialization were used. Subgroups of good and fair radiographs, which were determined by the amount of pelvic rotation that was visible, were used for subgroup analyses. To answer our first question, medialization of all hips was assessed via measurements made on three-dimensional (3-D) CT hip reconstruction models. For our second question, Pearson correlation coefficients, one-way ANOVA, and the Student t-test were calculated to assess the correlation between radiographic parameters (such as LCEA and AI) and the amount of medialization achieved. For our third question, statistical analyses were performed that included a linear regression analysis to determine the correlation between the two radiographic methods of measuring medialization and the true medialization on CT using Pearson correlation coefficients, as well as 95% confidence intervals and standard error of the estimate. For our fourth question, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine whether using intraoperative fluoroscopy to make medialization measurements differs from measurements made on radiographs. Results The true amount of medialization of the hip center achieved by PAO in our study as assessed by reference-standard CT measurements was 4 ± 3 mm; 46% (18 of 39 hips) were medialized 0 to 5 mm, 36% (14 hips) were medialized 5 to 10 mm, and 5% (2 hips) were medialized greater than 10 mm. Thirteen percent (5 hips) were lateralized (medialized < 0 mm). There were small differences in medialization between LCEA subgroups (6 ± 3 mm for an LCEA of ≤ 15°, 4 ± 4 mm for an LCEA between 15° and 20°, and 2 ± 3 mm for an LCEA of 20° to 25° [p = 0.04]). Hips with AI ≥ 15° (6 ± 3 mm) achieved greater amounts of medialization than did hips with AI of < 15° (2 ± 3 mm; p < 0.001). Measurement of medialization on plain radiographs at the center of the femoral head (traditional method) had a weaker correlation than using the inferior one-third of the femoral head (alternative method) when compared with CT scan measurements, which were used as the reference standard. The traditional method was not correlated across all radiographs or only good radiographs (r = 0.16 [95% CI -0.17 to 0.45]; p = 0.34 and r = 0.26 [95% CI -0.06 to 0.53]; p = 0.30), whereas the alternative method had strong and very strong correlations when assessed across all radiographs and only good radiographs, respectively (r = 0.71 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.84]; p < 0.001 and r = 0.80 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.89]; p < 0.001). Measurements of hip medialization made on intraoperative fluoroscopic images were not found to be different than measurements made on postoperative radiographs (r = 0.85; p < 0.001 across all hips and r = 0.90; p < 0.001 across only good radiographs). Conclusion Using measurements made on preoperative and postoperative CT, the current study demonstrates a mean true medialization achieved by PAO of 4 mm but with substantial variability. The traditional method of measuring medialization at the center of the femoral head may not be accurate; the alternate method of measuring medialization at the lower one-third of the femoral head is a superior way of assessing the hip center’s location. We suggest transitioning to using this alternative method to obtain the best clinical and research data, with the realization that both methods using plain radiography appear to underestimate the true amount of medialization achieved with PAO. Lastly, this study provides evidence that the hip center’s location and medialization can be accurately assessed intraoperatively using fluoroscopy. Level of Evidence Level III, diagnostic study.

Background The anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) prominence is increasingly recognized in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The AIIS prominence may contribute to decreased hip flexion after acetabular reorientation in patients with acetabular dysplasia. AIIS morphologies have been characterized in numerous populations including asymptomatic, FAI, and athletic populations, but the morphology of the AIIS in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia undergoing periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) has not been studied. In acetabular dysplasia, deficiency of the anterosuperior acetabular rim is commonly present and may result in the AIIS being positioned closer to the acetabular rim. Understanding morphological variation of the AIIS in patients with symptomatic dysplasia, and its relationship to dysplasia subtype and severity may aid preoperative planning, surgical technique, and evaluation of postoperative issues after PAO. Questions/purposes In this study, we sought to determine: (1) the variability of AIIS morphology types in hips with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia and (2) whether the differences in the proportion of AIIS morphologies are present between dysplasia pattern and severity subtypes. Methods Using our hip preservation database, we identified 153 hips (148 patients) who underwent PAO from October 2013 to July 2015. Inclusion criteria for the current study were (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] < 20°), Tönnis Grade of 0 or 1 on plain AP radiographs of the pelvis, preoperative low-dose CT scan, and no prior surgery, trauma, neuromuscular, ischemic necrosis, or Perthes-like deformity. A total of 50 patients (50 hips) with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia undergoing evaluation for surgical planning of PAO remained for retrospective evaluation; we used these patients’ low-dose CT scans for analysis. The median (range) age of patients in the study was 24 years (13 to 49). Ninety percent (45 of 50) of the hips were in female patients, whereas 10% (5 of 50) were in male patients. The morphology of the AIIS was classified on three-dimensional CT reconstructions according to a previously published classification to define the relationship between the AIIS and the acetabular rim. The morphology of the AIIS was classified as Type I (AIIS well proximal to acetabular rim), Type II (AIIS extending to level of acetabular rim), or Type III (AIIS extending distal to acetabular rim). Acetabular dysplasia subtype was characterized according to a prior protocol as either predominantly an anterosuperior acetabular deficiency, a posterosuperior acetabular deficiency, or a global acetabular deficiency. Acetabular dysplasia severity was distinguished as mild (LCEA 15° to 20°) or moderate/severe (LCEA < 15°). To answer our first question, regarding the proportions of each AIIS morphology in the dysplasia population, we calculated proportions and 95% CI estimates. To answer our second question, regarding the proposition of AIIS type between subtypes of dysplasia type and severity, we used a chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test to compare categorical variables. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results Seventy-two percent (36 of 50; 95% CI 58% to 83%) of patients had a Type II or III AIIS morphology. Type I AIIS morphology was found in 28% of patients (14 of 50; 95% CI 18% to 42%), Type II AIIS morphology in 62% (31 of 50; 95% CI 48% to 74%), and Type III AIIS/morphology in 10% (5 of 50; 95% CI 4% to 21%). A Type I AIIS was seen in seven of 15 of patients with anterosuperior acetabular deficiency, three of 18 of patients with global deficiency, and four of 17 patients with posterosuperior deficiency (p = 0.08). There was no difference in the variability of AIIS morphologies between the different subtypes of acetabular dysplasia pattern and no difference in AIIS morphology variability between patients with mild versus moderate/severe dysplasia. Conclusions The morphology of the AIIS in patients with acetabular dysplasia is commonly prominent, with 72% of hips having Type II or Type III morphologies. Clinical Relevance The AIIS is often prominent in patients with acetabular dysplasia undergoing PAO, regardless of dysplasia pattern or severity. Prominent AIIS morphologies may affect hip flexion ROM after acetabular reorientation. AIIS morphology is a variable that should be considered during preoperative planning for PAO. Future studies are needed to assess the clinical significance of a prominent AIIS on intraoperative findings and postoperative status after PAO.