Details of the studies included in this review
| Author | Definition cases/controls | Definition hip OA | Definition dysplasia | Results | Quality score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *From same population as that described by Yoshimura et al.28 | |||||
| AD, acetabular depth; CE angle, centre-edge angle; IV, intravenous; JSN, joint space narrowing; K&L, Kellgren and Lawrence; MJS, mean joint space width; OA, osteoarthritis; THR, total hip replacement. | |||||
| Cohort | |||||
| Lane6,22 | White women in four regions of the USA with (K&L 2–4) and without (K&L 0) hip OA (n = 58/118, ⩾65 years). Nested case-control with 8.3 (7.4–10.4) years’ prospective follow up | x Ray (K&L) | CE angle <30°, AD <9 mm | Female with v without hip OA had: | 75 |
| A smaller CE angle OR = 3.3 (1.1–10.1) | |||||
| A smaller AD OR = 0.6 (0.1–3.3) | |||||
| Dysplasia OR = 2.8 (1.0–7.9) | |||||
| Murphy25 | Patients after THR because of hip OA, with (K&L 3–4) and without (K&L 0–2) contralateral hip OA (n = 74/43, ⩾65 years). Nested case-control with prospective follow up | x Ray (K&L) | CE angle, AD index (depth/width) | CE angle and acetabular index were significantly smaller in the patients with OA (p<0.0001) | 58 |
| Hasegawa20,21 | Japanese patients with pre or early hip OA (n = 64, 13–62 years). Prospective follow up 12.8 (10–25) years | x Ray (JSN, sclerosis) | CE angle, AD ratio | Patients with a fast progression from pre to early hip OA had a significantly smaller CE angle, and a smaller AD ratio (p<0.001) | 50 |
| Yoshimura28 Croft19 Smith9 | British patients after IV urography (n = 1498, 60–75 years) and Japanese people after pelvic x ray (n = 198, 60–79 years). Cross sectional | x Ray (MJS) | CE angle, AD | Correlation between MJS and CE angle: British male r = −0.37, British female r = −0.25, Japanese male r = −0.39, Japanese female r = −0.26 | 50 |
| Correlation between MJS and AD: British male r = −0.15, British female r = −0.11, Japanese male r = −0.09, Japanese female r = −0.07 | |||||
| Lau23 | Male Chinese and British* patients after IV urography (n = 999, 60–75 years). Cross sectional | x Ray (MJS ⩽1.5) | CE angle <25°, AD <9 mm | People with an MJS ⩽1.5 v >4 mm had a smaller AD (OR = 0.4 (0.05–2.9)) and a smaller CE angle (OR = 0.5 (0.03–8.7)) | 42 |
| Case-control | |||||
| Laforgia24 | Patients in Italy on waiting list for osteotomy or THR (n = 60, average age 77 years). Cross sectional | Waiting list | CE angle | CE angle is significantly smaller in superolateral OA, and significantly higher in concentral/medial OA than in controls | 38 |
| Murray8 | British patients with hip OA (n = 50). Cross sectional | Clinical (patients) x ray (JSN, cysts, osteophytes, subluxation) | CE angle <25°, AD <9 mm. | Patients with HD showed an earlier age of onset of hip OA (50.8 years v 57.7 years in control) | 38 |
| Terjesen26 | Patients in Norway at orthopaedic clinics with hip complaints, with CE⩾20° (n = 50, 48–81 years). Cross sectional | Clinical (pain, functional disability). x Ray examination | CE angle <25° | No significant difference in CE angle between patients with v without hip OA | 31 |
| Wedge27 | Patients in Canada with primary hip OA (n = 30, 65 years). Retrospective | Clinical (patients). x Ray examination | CE angle <25°, AD <14 mm on AP x ray examination | Patients with hip OA had a significantly smaller CE angle and AD | 23 |