Table 6.

Previously published associations between radiographic parameters

Study	Study population	Modality	Association between lateral CEA and				Association between
			Femoral version	Acetabular version	Alpha angle	Neck-shaft angle	Neck-shaft angle and femoral version	Femoral and acetabular version	Femoral version, acetabular version, and alpha angle
Akiyama et al. [1]	Japanese females with dysplasia compared with controls	CT scan and pelvic radiographs	Higher version in DDH (avg 22°) compared to controls (14°) p < 0.001	Higher anteversion in DDH (avg 24°) compared with controls (avg 21°) p = 0.006				Correlation in anterior and global deficiency subgroups of hips with DDH No correlation in controls
Anda et al. [2]	Norwegian patients with symptomatic dysplasia	CT scan	Increased version in DDH compared to controls, but no correlation	None				None
Argenson et al. [3]	French patients with DDH and arthrosis compared to controls	CT scan and pelvic radiographs	Increased anteversion for DDH compared to controls			46.5% incidence of coxa valga in hips with DDH	None
Buller et al. [9]	Asymptomatic US patients (29–75 years old)	CT scans originally obtained for vascular angiography	None				None	Positive correlation: 0.38° to 1° p < 0.05
Ellis et al. [14]	Cadaveric femora	CT scan							No difference in femoral version between cam morphology femurs (9°) and normal femurs (9°) p = 0.816
Ito et al. [24]	Swiss patients with hip pain compared to controls	MRI							Decreased anteversion for patients with hip pain/impingement (10°) compared to controls (16°)
Leunig et al. [31]	Swiss patients with OA secondary to protrusio compared to patients with OA but no protrusio	Pelvic radiographs				Lower neck-shaft angle (121°) in protrusio group (CEA = 60°) compared to controls (CEA = 36°, neck-shaft angle 130°’)
Noble et al. [39]	Japanese women with DDH compared to controls	CT scan	Higher avg anteversion in DDH (42°) compared to controls (36°) p = 0.007			No difference in neck-shaft angle between DDH and controls (avg 124° for both) p = 0.897
Reikeras et al. [46]	Cadaveric study in Norway	Direct bone measurement and radiographs					Weak correlation between version and neck-shaft angle
Steppacher et al. [50]	Swiss patients with DDH compared to patients with a deep acetabulum	MR arthrography	Hips with DDH (CEA < 25°) had more oval femoral heads Overcovered hips (CEA > 39°) had rounder femoral heads Avg alpha angle < 41° in all positions for both groups			Avg DDH: 137° Avg overcovered: 129° p < 0.001
Sutter et al. [52]	Swiss patients with FAI compared to asymptomatic volunteers	MRI							Femoral version similar for both cohorts (avg 12° for both) and not different for cam FAI (11°) compared to normal (13°)
Tönnis and Heinecke [54]	German patients with hip pain	CT scan and pelvic radiograph	No association between femoral version and DDH	No association between acetabular version and DDH				Significant numbers of patients with all combinations of femoral and acetabular version, some with compensatory relationships No correlation coefficient given
Current study	Swiss patients undergoing hip MR arthrography for any reason	MR arthrography and pelvic radiographs	None	None	None	None	Association between neck-shaft angle and version; explains 13% of variance of version	Weak association; femoral version explains 5% of variance in acetabular version	Acetabular version is a weak predictor of alpha angle; explains 5% of variance

CEA = center-edge angle; DDH = developmental dysplasia of the hip; OA = osteoarthritis; FAI = femoroacetabular impingement; avg = average.