0
Scientific Articles   |    
Pelvic Inlet and Outlet Radiographs Redefined
William M. Ricci, MD1; Christiaan Mamczak, DO1; Martin Tynan, MD2; Philipp Streubel, MD1; Michael Gardner, MD1
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 1 Barnes Hospital Plaza, Suite 11300, St. Louis, MO 63110. E-mail address for W.M. Ricci: ricciw@wustl.edu
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Pavilion III, Building 29A, Orange, CA 92868
View Disclosures and Other Information
Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from Smith and Nephew, Wright Medical, AO North America, Synthes, and the Foundation for Orthopedic Trauma. In addition, one or more of the authors or a member of his or her immediate family received, in any one year, payments or other benefits in excess of $10,000 or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Smith and Nephew, Expanding Orthopedics, and Wright Medical).

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Copyright © 2010 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2010 Aug 18;92(10):1947-1953. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01580
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: 

Musculoskeletal plain radiographic imaging protocols are typically predicated on orthogonal views of the bone or joint being evaluated. Pelvic injury has been evaluated with 45° inlet and 45° outlet radiographs. While these views are perpendicular to each other, they may not be in the best plane to evaluate pelvic injury because of variable lumbopelvic anatomy. We hypothesized that inlet and outlet radiographic views optimized to examine the clinically relevant osseous landmarks vary substantially from routine 45° inlet and outlet views.

Methods: 

Sixty-eight consecutive patients without pelvic ring disruption who had undergone routine axial pelvic computed tomography scans were retrospectively identified. The optimal inlet and outlet angles required to profile the clinically relevant pelvic anatomy were quantified for each patient with use of sagittal computed tomography reconstructions.

Results: 

The optimal inlet angle to profile the anterior body of S1 required an average caudal tilt of 21°. The average outlet angle (cephalad tilt) perpendicular to the body of S1 was 63° and perpendicular to S2 was 57°. The optimal angles were the same for male and female patients and for patients with normal and dysmorphic pelves and were independent of patient age.

Conclusions: 

Screening inlet and screening outlet radiographs made at 25° and 60°, respectively, are recommended to provide accurate profiles of the clinically relevant posterior osseous pelvic anatomy.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe





    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    01/08/2014
    Pennsylvania - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
    05/03/2012
    California - UCLA/OH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery