![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Background and purpose — The alpha angle is the most used measurement to classify concavity of the femoral head-neck junction. It is not only used for treatment decisions for hip impingement, but also in cohort studies relating hip morphology and osteoarthritis. Alpha angle measurement requires identification of the femoral neck axis, the definition of which may vary between studies. The original “3-point method” uses 1 single point to construct the femoral neck axis, whereas the “anatomic method” uses multiple points and attempts to define the true anatomic neck axis. Depending on the method used, the alpha angle may or may not account for other morphological characteristics such as head-neck offset.
Methods — We compared 2 methods of alpha angle measurement (termed “anatomic” and “3-point”) in 59 cadaver femora and 83 cross-table lateral radiographs of asymptomatic subjects. Results were compared using Bland-Altman plots.
Results — Discrepancies of up to 13 degrees were seen between the methods. The 3-point method had an “equalizing effect” by disregarding femoral head position relative to the neck: in femora with high alpha angle, it resulted in lower values than anatomic measurement, and vice versa in femora with low alpha angles. Using the anatomic method, we derived a reference interval for the alpha angle in normal hips in the general population of 30–66 degrees.
Interpretation — We recommend the anatomic method because it also reflects the position of the femoral head on the neck. Consensus and standardization of technique of alpha angle measurement is warranted, not only for planar measurements but also for CT or MRI-based measurements.
HB and NS performed all measurements. PT contributed with photographs of the cadaver specimens. TP contributed with radiographs of the control population. PK and HB performed the analysis. TH designed the study. TH, HB, PT, and TP prepared the manuscript.
HB was supported by an educational grant from Depuy Johnson and Johnson and Link GmbH.
No competing interests declared.