Table 2.
Acetabular anatomy and morphological parameters for Crowe Iva, IVb DDH and control group
| Control group | DDH group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IVa (n = 27) | IVb (n = 26) | P valure | ||
|
Dislocation rate, % (SD; range) |
/ | 30.04 (3.71; 21.60 to 37.87) | 25.08 (5.17; 19.63 to 38.38) | t=-4.019; P < 0.001** |
| Acetabular Length, mm (SD; range) | 54.50 (2.02; 51.37 to 59.12) | 38.70 (4.57; 30.53 to 46.62) ## | 39.63 (3.97; 34.98 to 50.65) ## | t = 0.789; P = 0.434 |
| Acetabular Height, mm (SD; range) | 34.37 (3.08; 28.20 to 42.40) | 28.53 (4.22; 19.41 to 38.27) ## | 30.06 (4.15; 21.30 to 38.25) ## | t = 1.332; P = 0.189 |
|
Acetabular Width, mm (SD; range) |
50.09 (2.95; 42.27 to 55.41) | 27.27 (6.84; 18.02 to 41.62) ## | 28.12 (6.60; 15.38 to 45.39) ## | t = 0.463; P = 0.645 |
|
Acetabular Depth, mm (SD; range) |
27.27 (2.62; 23.89 to 33.30) | 13.35 (3.37; 7.52 to 21.72) ## | 14.44 (3.15; 7.51 to 21.90) ## | t = 1.212; P = 0.231 |
| Acetabular Volume, mm3 (SD; range) | 37234.31 (7395.23; 29995.27 to 48034.93) | 6934.87 (2148.18; 5002.00 to 12270.37) ## | 8221.78 (2106.68; 5066.66 to 13757.24) ## | t = 1.684; P = 0.103 |
| Cup Size, mm (SD; range) | 52.65 (2.41; 50 to 58) | 44.22 (0.85; 44 to 48) ## | 44.15 (0.54; 44 to 46) ## | t = 0.348; P = 0.729 |
| Cup-CE, deg (SD; range) | 45.74 (5.58; 31.74 to 55.69) | 24.74 (7.08; 12.93 to 40.13) ## | 20.70 (7.59; 8.20 to 38.71) ## | t=-2.007; P = 0.050* |
| Cup-Sharp, deg (SD; range) | 35.93 (4.16; 27.39 to 46.84) | 47.43 (4.00; 40.93 to 56.12) ## | 51.20 (6.05; 34.95 to 62.79) ## | t = 2.688; P = 0.010* |
| Anteversion Angle, deg (SD; range) | 20.07 (7.24; 7.13 to 37.68) | 30.17 (9.06; 11.41 to 50.14) ## | 36.49 (5.37; 27.74 to 49.48) ## | t = 3.075; P = 0.003** |
|
Medial Thickness, mm (SD; range) |
3.63 (1.24; 2.21 to 6.66) | 7.21 (3.21; 2.57 to 14.31) ## | 6.13 (2.40; 2.53 to 10.93) ## | t=-1.382; P = 0.173 |
IVa: without false acetabulum; IVb: with false acetabulum;
#p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, compared with the control group; *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, for the comparison between the type IVa DDH and type IVb DDH