Three‐dimensional assessment of subchondral arc and hip joint coverage angles in the asymptomatic young adult hip

Abstract The primary objective of this study was to develop a custom algorithm to assess three‐dimensional (3D) acetabular coverage of the femoral head based on surface models generated from computed tomography (CT) imaging. The secondary objective was to apply this algorithm to asymptomatic young adult hip joints to assess the regional 3D acetabular coverage variability and understand how these novel 3D metrics relate to traditional two‐dimensional (2D) radiographic measurements of coverage. The algorithm developed automatically identifies the lateral‐ and medial‐most edges of the acetabular lunate at one‐degree intervals around the acetabular rim based on local radius of curvature. The acetabular edges and the center of a best‐fit sphere to the femoral head are then used to compute the mean 3D subchondral arc angles and hip joint coverage angles in five acetabular octants. This algorithm was applied to hip models generated from pelvis/hip CT imaging or abdomen/pelvis CT angiograms of 50 patients between 17 and 25 years of age who had no history of congenital or developmental hip pathology, neuromuscular conditions, or bilateral pelvic and/or femoral fractures. Corresponding 2D acetabular coverage measures of lateral center edge angle (LCEA) and acetabular arc angle (AAA) were assessed on the patients' clinical or digitally reconstructed radiographs. The 3D subchondral arc angle in the superior region (58.0 [54.6–64.8] degrees) was significantly higher ( p < 0.001) than all other acetabular subregions. The 3D hip joint coverage angle in the superior region (26.2 [20.7–28.5] degrees) was also significantly higher ( p < 0.001) than all other acetabular subregions. 3D superior hip joint coverage angle demonstrated the strongest correlation with 2D LCEA ( r = 0.649, p < 0.001), while 3D superior‐anterior subchondral arc angle demonstrated the strongest correlation with 2D AAA ( r = 0.718, p < 0.001). The 3D coverage metrics in the remaining acetabular regions did not strongly correlate with typical 2D radiographic measures. The discrepancy between standard 2D measures of radiographic acetabular coverage and actual 3D coverage identified on advanced imaging indicates potential discord between anatomic coverage and the standard clinical measures of coverage on 2D imaging. As 2D measurement of acetabular coverage is increasingly used to guide surgical decision‐making to address acetabular deformities, this work would suggest that 3D measures of acetabular coverage may be important to help discriminate local coverage deficiencies, avoid inconsistencies resulting from differences in radiographic measurement techniques, and provide a better understanding of acetabular coverage in the hip joint, potentially altering surgical planning and guiding surgical technique.