Incidence False Negative Pelvic Fracture X-ray Review Age Ischiopubic -child Elderly

• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC5545133

Anat Rec (Hoboken). Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2018 April 1.

Published in terminal edited form as:

PMCID: PMC5545133

NIHMSID: NIHMS887970

The Human Pelvis: Variation in structure and office during gait

Cara L. Lewis

¹Department of Concrete Therapy & Athletic Training, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Natalie M. Laudicina

^twoDepartment of Anthropology, Boston University, Boston, MA, United states

Anne Khuu

^oneDepartment of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Kari L. Loverro

¹Department of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training, Boston Academy, Boston, MA, United states

Abstract

The shift to habitual bipedalism 4–half dozen meg years ago in the hominin lineage created a morphologically and functionally different human being pelvis compared to our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. Evolutionary changes to the shape of the pelvis were necessary for the transition to habitual bipedalism in humans. These changes in the bony anatomy resulted in an altered role of muscle function, influencing bipedal gait. Additionally, there are normal sex-specific variations in the pelvis besides as abnormal variations in the acetabulum. During gait, the pelvis moves in the three planes to produce smooth and efficient move. Subtle sexual activity-specific differences in these motions may facilitate economical gait despite differences in pelvic construction. The motions of the pelvis and hip may also be altered in the presence of abnormal acetabular structure, especially with acetabular dysplasia.

Evolutionary changes in the shape of the human pelvis were necessary for habitual bipedalism. Fossil pelves early in the hominin lineage illustrate these adaptations including a wider sacrum and more than laterally positioned flared ilia than what the homo-chimpanzee last common antecedent is hypothesized to exhibit (Lovejoy 2005; Robinson 1972). These distinguishing characteristics early in hominin evolution allowed for lumbar lordosis, which is necessary to maintain the upright posture, equally well as the conversion of hip extensors to hip abductors with an increased moment arm to balance the center of mass in the frontal plane (Lovejoy 2005; Robinson 1972). While the gait mechanics in fossil hominins has been debated (Berge 1994; Hunt 1994; Ruff 1998; Stern Jr and Susman 1983; Ward 2002), the mod human pelvis is adapted to habitual bipedality that results in specific pelvic motion during walking. These motions are thought to reduce energetic costs (Bramble and Lieberman 2004; Leonard and Robertson 1995; Saunders, Inman, Eberhart 1953). Potentially counter to the energetic cost savings, the female pelvis evolved to allow the birth of big-brained infants (Abitbol 1996; Caldwell and Moloy 1933; Lovejoy 2005; Meindl et al. 1985; Rosenberg 1992; Tague 1992; but run into Warrener et al. 2015). Contempo studies take challenged assumptions about the office of pelvic motion during gait and differences in that move between males and females. The purpose of this article is to review the structure of the man pelvis and discuss the typical movements of the pelvis during man gait. Sexual activity-specific variations in pelvis structure and two abnormal variations in acetabular structure and their influence on pelvic motion during gait will as well exist discussed.

Normal Structure of the Human Pelvis

The human pelvis includes the sacrum, the coccyx, and 2 bone coxae (White, Black, Folkens 2011). Each os coxae is made up of 3 parts: the ischium, the ilium, and the pubis (White, Black, Folkens 2011). The articulations within the pelvis are: inferiorly between the sacrum and the coccyx (sacrococcygeal symphysis), posteriorly between the sacrum and each ilium (sacroiliac (SI) joint), and anteriorly betwixt the pubic bodies (pubic symphysis). The SI joint offers some movement during childhood, but transitions to a modified synarthrodial joint, which allows niggling to no motion, by machismo (Brooke 1924; Lovejoy et al. 1985). The pubic symphysis is a cartilaginous synarthordial joint with a fibrocartilaginous interpubic disc (Hagen 1974). This articulation allows a small amount of translation and rotation. As the pelvic ring creates a closed chain, movement at the pubic symphysis requires simultaneous motion at the SI joint, and vice versa.

The articulation between the pelvis and the femur is the acetabulum, which is formed by portions of the ilium, ischium, and pubis (White, Black, Folkens 2011). This synovial brawl-and-socket joint allows substantial motion within the sagittal plane, with additional motion in the frontal and transverse planes. The acetabulum has articular cartilage in the shape of a horseshoe where the femoral head articulates with the bone coxae. The normal orientation of the acetabulum is described as being rotated approximately 20–40 degrees off vertical in the frontal plane (Werner et al. 2012), and twenty–xxx degrees anteriorly (Merle et al. 2013; Murray 1993; Perreira et al. 2011; Reynolds, Lucas, Klaue 1999). This orientation positions the bone to provide the well-nigh stability medially, superiorly, and posteriorly.

In addition to the bony stability, other structures including the acetabular labrum, ligaments, and articulation capsule, as well equally muscles, provide stability anteriorly and laterally. The acetabular labrum, which is composed of fibrocartilage and dense connective tissue (Petersen, Petersen, Tillmann 2003), deepens the hip socket and helps provide a sealing mechanism for the joint (Hlavacek 2002; Tan et al. 2001). The primary hip ligaments (iliofemoral, ischiofemoral, and pubofemoral) each provide stability throughout dissimilar hip positions. All 3 ligaments, however, tighten as the hip moves into extension. The ligaments and capsule are virtually taut when the hip is in extension, slight internal rotation, and abduction (Neumann 2010b). Unlike at virtually other joints, this position of maximal ligamentous stability is not the position of maximal bony congruency. In the hip, maximal joint congruency occurs in xc degrees of hip flexion with moderate hip abduction and external rotation. In addition to the capsular hip ligaments, smaller ligaments may also play a role in stability. For instance, the ligamentum teres has recently been suggested to provide stability at end range hip motions, particularly hip abduction, medial rotation, and lateral rotation (Martin, Kivlan, Clemente 2013), and to preclude femoral head subluxation with combined hip flexion and abduction (Kivlan et al. 2013). The higher prevalence of ligamentum teres tears in individuals with decreased bony stability farther supports this assertion (Domb, Martin, Botser 2013). This role of stabilizer is in improver to the traditional role of the ligamentum teres – carrying the blood supply to the femoral head.

Muscles around the hip joint can as well provide substantial dynamic stability. Muscles which are close to the joint axis of rotation (local muscles) likely provide joint stability whereas muscles farther from the axis of rotation (global muscles) provide the joint torque. At the hip, these local muscles include the deep external rotators, iliopsoas, and gluteus medius and minimus (see Retchford et al., (2013) for an splendid review).

Sexual activity-specific Differences in the Human Pelvis

Sexual practice-specific differences are expressed in the overall structure of the human being pelvis (Caldwell and Moloy 1933; Meindl et al. 1985; Tague 1992). The female pelvis tends to be wider and broader, with less prominent ischial spines (Kurki 2011; Meindl et al. 1985; Tague 1992). The male pelvis typically has a longer, more than curved sacrum, and a narrower sub-pubic curvation (betwixt the left and right ischiopubic rami) (Caldwell and Moloy 1933; Tague 1992). While the female person pelvis is wider when measured between the ischial spines (bispinous width) (Tague 1992), the biacetabular width is not significantly different between females and males across all populations (Kurki 2011). This discrepancy is partially due to the larger male femoral caput (Kurki 2011) which shifts the hip articulation heart laterally. Whether the morphological differences between the sexes outcome from obstetric constraints or from differential allometric growth trajectories has been debated (Abitbol 1996; Abouheif and Fairbairn 1997; Badyaev 2002; Kurki 2011; Rosenberg 1992; Schultz 1949).

Sex-specific differences in the pelvis permit for a wider pelvic discontinuity in females which functions as the birth canal, facilitating the passage of large-brained neonates (Abitbol 1996; Caldwell and Moloy 1933; Kurki 2011; Lovejoy 2005; Meindl et al. 1985; Rosenberg 1992). In females, the nascence canal is expanded every bit a result of anatomies including a wider sacrum, a wider subpubic angle, and less prominent ischial spines (Kurki 2011; Tague and Lovejoy 1986; Tague 1992). A larger nascency canal becomes essential with the encephalized neonatal heads in humans (Abitbol 1996; Caldwell and Moloy 1933; Lovejoy 2005; Meindl et al. 1985; Rosenberg 1992).

When this pelvic sexual dimorphism occurred in human evolutionary history is unclear due to the paucity and fragmentary nature of fossil pelvic remains. Ardipithecus ramidus (ARA-VP-half dozen/500), a hominin from 4.4 million years agone, exhibits synapomorphies with humans in its pelvic morphology including superior-inferiorly shortened and mediolaterally broad iliac blades (Lovejoy et al. 2009; White et al. 2009). The small cranial capacity in Ar. ramidus indicates that these pelvic morphologies are probably a effect of locomotor, rather than obstetric, demands (Lovejoy et al. 2009; White et al. 2009). Subsequently hominins such as A.L. 288-ane (Australopithecus afarensis) and Sts fourteen (Au. africanus) exhibit female-specific pelvic morphologies (Berge et al. 1984; Tague and Lovejoy 1986; but see Häusler and Schmid 1995). However, it is not until the dramatic increase in encephalon size around 1.8 meg years ago that obstetric constraints probably contributed to hominin pelvic morphology (Simpson et al. 2008).

The pelvic differences between males and females may be a result of hormonal influence on bone growth (Badyaev 2002; Huseynov et al. 2016; Tague 1989). Sexual activity-specific hormones during growth, such as testosterone and estrogen, have been hypothesized to influence pelvic morphology (Badyaev 2002; Huseynov et al. 2016; Tague 1989). At that place is a greater caste of sexual dimorphism as trunk size increases beyond virtually mammalian species (Abouheif and Fairbairn 1997). In humans, where males are slightly larger than females, the growth trajectories betwixt the sexes vary (Badyaev 2002; Huseynov et al. 2016). Whether this is the cause of the sexual practice-specific pelvic morphologies in humans has yet to be determined, only contempo research has suggested that female hormones at puberty influence the obstetric dimensions of the pelvis (Huseynov et al. 2016).

Every bit reviewed, intersexual pelvic morphological differences in humans may exist the event of obstetric demands, differences in growth patterns, or a combination of the 2. The idea that the broad pelvis increases the locomotor costs for females has been proposed (Bramble and Lieberman 2004; Rosenberg 1992; Tague 1989; Zihlman and Brunker 1979), but has not been supported by empirical data (Dunsworth et al. 2012; Warrener et al. 2015). In one study past Leonard and Robertson (1995), it was found that when walking normally, women were really more efficient than men. Nevertheless, kinematic differences between men and women have been noted in pelvic motions (Bruening et al. 2015) which may exist a result of a wider female pelvis. Nosotros discuss the sex-specific differences of pelvic motion in human gait afterwards in this commodity.

Abnormal Structure of the Human Acetabulum: Under-coverage and Over-coverage

In improver to the sex-specific variation in the human pelvis, such as widening of the female pelvis, there is also variation in the construction of the human being acetabulum. This variation, when viewed through an evolutionary lens, may be a by-product of the changes in overall pelvic morphology necessary for bipedal locomotion (Hogervorst et al. 2011). While a wide range of this variability is considered normal, two structural abnormalities usually noted today tin can more often than not be described every bit under-coverage and over-coverage of the acetabulum on the femur. Although these aberrant structures are idea to contribute to hip pain, the exact point at which these structures vary plenty to be termed pathologic is not well established (Anderson et al. 2012; Diesel et al. 2015; Harris-Hayes and Royer 2011; Nepple et al. 2013). Under-coverage and over-coverage are clinically referred to as acetabular dysplasia and pincer femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), respectively. Interestingly, each of these occur more often in females than males (Bache, Clegg, Herron 2002; Tannast, Siebenrock, Anderson 2007). This sex-specific prevalence may be a result of the dual evolutionary challenge of bipedalism and obstetric constraints (Hogervorst et al. 2011).

Acetabular dysplasia is when the acetabulum fails to provide the normal amount of bony coverage, or stability, effectually the femoral head. The reported incidence of dysplasia ranges from 0.06 to 76.1 per one thousand live births, with most developed countries reporting an incidence betwixt ane.five and 20 per g alive births. (Bache, Clegg, Herron 2002; Loder and Skopelja 2011; Patel and Canadian Chore Strength on Preventive Health Care 2001; Rosendahl, Markestad, Prevarication 1994) Risk factors for dysplasia include breech intrauterine position, female person sex, loftier nativity weight, family history of dysplasia, firstborn status, and race (Bache, Clegg, Herron 2002; Storer and Skaggs 2006).

The degree of nether-coverage exists along a continuum. The mildest forms can be asymptomatic and undetected, while moderate and severe forms can crusade hip instability, subluxation, or dislocation (McWilliams et al. 2010; Storer and Skaggs 2006). The more than severe forms are unremarkably diagnosed in infancy during concrete test or ultrasonography screening. Milder forms of dysplasia, however, may not be diagnosed until insidious hip or groin hurting develops in skeletally mature adults (Hickman and Peters 2001; McCarthy and Lee 2002; Nunley et al. 2011; Peters and Erickson 2006).

In the presence of dysplasia, there is less containment of the femoral caput inside the shallow acetabulum during weight-bearing. The poor congruency leads to increased stress which may cause a fracture of the acetabular rim and separation of rim fragments as well as labral hypertrophy and tears (Chegini, Brook, Ferguson 2009; Hickman and Peters 2001; Horii et al. 2003; Klaue, Durnin, Ganz 1991; Lane et al. 2000; Leunig et al. 2004; Mavcic et al. 2008; McCarthy and Lee 2002). In adults, the main handling of acetabular dysplasia is acetabular reorientation surgery, usually with the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) (Ganz et al. 1988; Hickman and Peters 2001). The general goal of this surgical reorientation is to reduce contact stress by improving the congruency and coverage of the femoral head, and thereby delay or prevent the onset of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Even so, non-surgical interventions may be successful in individuals with mild dysplasia (Lewis, Khuu, Marinko 2015).

Common measures for acetabular dysplasia include the center edge angle and acetabular depth. The center edge angle is defined every bit the bending betwixt a line drawn vertically from the center of the femoral caput and a line drawn from the heart of the femoral head to the lateral edge of the weight-bearing zone of the acetabulum (Clohisy et al. 2008). This angle is well-nigh typically measured on an anteroposterior view of the pelvis, and is called the lateral center edge bending (Figure 1A). It is besides sometimes measured anteriorly on a false-profile view, and is called the inductive center border angle (Effigy 1B). In the fake-profile view, the radiograph is obtained with the pelvis rotated posteriorly 25 degrees (65 degrees relative to image receptor) (Clohisy et al. 2008) to permit a less obstructed view of the acetabulum and femur. While it is agreed that a reduced center edge angle indicates dysplasia, the verbal cutoff value is non well established. Cutoff values of 20 degrees, 25 degrees, and thirty degrees have all been used (Harris-Hayes and Royer 2011).

Measures of the acetabulum. A. Lateral middle border angle: on an anteroposterior view of the pelvis, the angle betwixt a line drawn vertically from the center of the femoral head (blue) and a line drawn from the center of the femoral head to the lateral edge of the weight-begetting zone of the acetabulum (scarlet). B. Anterior heart edge angle: on a false-contour view of the pelvis, the bending between a line drawn vertically from the middle of the femoral head (blue) and a line drawn from the center of the femoral head to the inductive edge of the weight-bearing zone of the acetabulum (red). C. Acetabular depth: on an anteroposterior view of the pelvis, the perpendicular distance (blue line) from the deepest part of the acetabular roof to a line connecting the lateral margin of the acetabular roof to the upper corner of the pubic symphysis (red). D. Coxa profunda: on an anteroposterior view of the pelvis, when the floor of the acetabulum is medial to or touching the ilioischial line (blood-red).

Acetabular depth is an boosted measure used to diagnosis dysplasia. Information technology is the perpendicular distance from the deepest part of the acetabular roof to a line connecting the lateral margin of the acetabular roof to the upper corner of the pubic symphysis (Lane et al. 2000; Murray 1965). (Figure 1C) An acetabular depth of less than 9 mm is considered indicative of dysplasia (Lane et al. 2000; Reijman et al. 2005).

Acetabular dysplasia has been linked with the evolution of hip OA (Birrell et al. 2003; Lievense et al. 2004; Nunley et al. 2011; Reijman et al. 2005). Untreated moderate and severe dysplasia can lead to early hip OA and the demand for hip arthroplasty (Murphy, Ganz, Muller 1995). Fifty-fifty mild dysplasia more than doubles the take a chance of hip OA (Lane et al. 2000; McWilliams et al. 2010). However, in one written report, hips with a lateral center edge bending fifty-fifty as low as 16 degrees, did not progress to OA by historic period 65 years (Murphy, Ganz, Muller 1995), indicating that the natural progression for mild dysplasia is less articulate.

Acetabular over-coverage contributing to FAI has been recently recognized as an abnormal bone shape contributing to hip pain, acetabular labral tears, and chondral pathology (Ganz et al. 2003). This type of FAI called "pincer FAI" is thought to lead to impingement between the enlarged acetabular rim and the femur (Ganz et al. 2003). Whereas acetabular dysplasia is diagnosed past a smaller than normal middle edge angle, pincer FAI is diagnosed when the center edge angle is greater than 40 degrees (Clohisy et al. 2011; Tannast et al. 2007). This over-coverage, which is diagnosed more often in females than males (Tannast et al. 2007), can exist local or global, and can be inductive or lateral or both. In addition to the centre edge angle, the relative position of the acetabulum within the pelvis has been used to diagnose pincer FAI. When the flooring of the acetabulum is touching or medial to the ilioischial line (Figure 1D), this indicates coxa profunda, and is frequently classified as pincer FAI (Clohisy et al. 2011).

While a center edge angle greater than xl degrees or the presence of coxa profunda are commonly thought to indicate abnormal acetabular geometry, the prevalence of pincer deformity detected in asymptomatic hips is approximately 67% (Frank et al. 2015). Additionally, multiple studies take found high prevalence of coxa profunda in asymptomatic individuals, and little or no correspondence with other measures of pincer FAI (Anderson et al. 2012; Diesel et al. 2015; Nepple et al. 2013). Together, these studies indicate that coxa profunda itself should not be used as an indicator of pincer FAI, especially in females (Diesel fuel et al. 2015; Nepple et al. 2013). Furthermore, the increased prevalence of coxa profunda in females (Diesel et al. 2015; Nepple et al. 2013) may be an adaptation to the wider pelvis which accommodates obstetric demands. From a biomechanical perspective, the deep acetabulum moves the hip articulation eye more medially. This alter reduces the moment arm for the center of mass, and therefore reduces the force required of the hip abductors (Hogervorst et al. 2011), a potential energetic advantage. Thus, the deep hip socket may be a beneficial variation instead of a pathology.

While at that place is stiff evidence supporting the link between hip OA and acetabular dysplasia, the link with pincer FAI is questionable. Initial studies reported a potential increased take chances (Chung et al. 2010); however, a more recent large cohort study did non find an increased gamble (Agricola et al. 2013).

Motions of the Human Pelvis

By and large, motions of the pelvis are described equally rotations about one of iii central axes, each of which creates motion in ane of the planes (Cappozzo et al. 2005). The terminology for these rotations is not consistent across dissimilar scientific and clinical fields, and therefore, volition be explained in depth here. Rotation about a mediolateral axis produces motility within the sagittal aeroplane, and is often referred to as anterior or posterior tilt or rotation (Figure 2A). With anterior pelvic tilt, the anterior superior iliac spines (ASIS) each move anteriorly and inferiorly while the posterior superior iliac spines (PSIS) each move superiorly (Levangie and Norkin 2011; Murray, Kory, Sepic 1970; Neumann 2010a). Conversely, posterior pelvic tilt occurs when the ASIS move posteriorly and superiorly while the PSIS move inferiorly.

Motions of the pelvis. A. Pelvic motion in the sagittal airplane described as posterior and anterior tilt. B. Pelvic motion in the frontal aeroplane described as pelvic drop and pelvic hike. C. Pelvic motion in the transverse plane described as forrad rotation and backward rotation. The motions in the frontal and transverse planes are typically described by the motion of the side of the pelvis opposite the stance leg (right leg in this case).

Rotation nigh an anteroposterior axis creates motion inside the frontal or coronal plane (Figure 2B). This motion occurs when i side of the pelvis moves lower every bit the other side moves college, and is often referred to equally pelvic drib or hike; or in some fields, pelvic obliquity or list. Typically, this occurs while weight-begetting on a single lower extremity and is described by the motion of the contralateral side of the pelvis (Levangie and Norkin 2011; Neumann 2010a). For example, when standing on the correct lower extremity, pelvic drop is when the left side of the pelvis is lowered. Conversely, when the left side of the pelvis is raised, this is considered pelvic hike. Sometimes this is referred to as contralateral pelvic drop or hike in order to convey the sense that the description refers to the side abroad from the stance lower extremity. Information technology is important to understand, however, that the motion is controlled past the opinion hip abductor muscles (Neumann 2010b).

Rotation most a vertical axis produces motility in the transverse or horizontal plane (Figure 2C). In some fields, this is referred to as forwards and backward rotation (Levangie and Norkin 2011), or similarly as anterior and posterior rotation. Again, the naming convention is based on the motility of the side contralateral to the hip decision-making the motion. For example, when standing on the right lower extremity, forrard rotation is when the contralateral side is moving forward or anteriorly. Backward rotation is when the contralateral side is moving backward or posteriorly. Others refer to these motions as internal and external rotation (Neumann 2010a), and is named similarly to the motions of the lower extremity segments. Just every bit right femoral internal rotation is counter-clockwise rotation of the femur when viewed from a superior perspective, internal rotation of the pelvis during correct stance is counter-clockwise rotation of the pelvis or backward rotation (Neumann 2010a).

These same terms for pelvic movement (hike / driblet, tilt and rotation) are also used to describe the position of the pelvis in certain postures or activities. In standing with weight equally distributed betwixt both lower extremities, the pelvis is normally level with the left and the right ASIS existence at the same superlative (Michaud, Gard, Childress 2000), indicating neither pelvic hike nor driblet or no obliquity. In the sagittal plane, "neutral" pelvis has sometimes been defined as the ASIS being in the same vertical airplane every bit the symphysis pubis (Kendall, McCreary, Provance 1993; Levangie and Norkin 2011). This definition is often extended to indicate that a line drawn between the ASIS and PSIS is horizontal, indicating no tilt. Apply of these bony landmarks allow the clinician to hands palpate and measure pelvic tilt. Typically, people stand in 11 to xiii degrees of anterior pelvic tilt (Crowell et al. 1994; Levine and Whittle 1996). One should be cautioned that this pelvic tilt is not the same as the radiological measure of "pelvic tilt" commonly noted in literature focusing on the spine. In spine literature, the pelvic tilt measurement is the angle between a vertical line passing through the heart of the bicoxofemoral centrality and a line fatigued betwixt the axis and the centre of the superior endplate of S1 (Ames et al. 2013; Garbossa et al. 2014; Roussouly et al. 2005). Using this measure, pelvic tilt in standing is typically betwixt 12 and fifteen degrees (Ames et al. 2013; Roussouly et al. 2005). Despite the range being similar to the anterior pelvic tilt measure using ASIS as a reference, in this radiological measure of pelvic tilt, increasing numbers signal increasing posterior pelvic tilt.

Pelvic motion during human gait

During human gait, the pelvis has motions most all three axes. The magnitude of these motions is partially dependent on walking speed, with larger motions occurring at faster walking speeds (Bejek et al. 2006; Crosbie, Vachalathiti, Smith 1997; Murray, Kory, Sepic 1970; Stokes, Andersson, Forssberg 1989). Hither, nosotros present data from our laboratory collected on 44 healthy individuals (22 females (age: 22.9 ± ii.8 years (mean ± standard departure (SD)), height: ane.63 ± 0.07 1000, mass: 61.1 ± 8.five kg) and 22 males (age: 24.9 ± 6.iii years, height: 1.78 ± 0.09 m, mass: 75.2 ± 14.2 kg) while walking on an instrumented force treadmill (Bertec Corporation, Columbus, OH). Information were nerveless and candy using standard motion capture methodology which has been previously published (Ogamba et al. 2016). Individuals were tested walking at 2 walking speeds: self-selected (~1.27 m/due south) and prescribed (ane.25 m/s). Using a prescribed walking speed where all individuals walk at the same speed allows for comparison of parameters which may exist afflicted past walking speed.

In the sagittal aeroplane, the pelvis is typically maintained in anterior pelvic tilt throughout gait (O'Neill et al. 2015), and completes ii full cycles of a sinusoidal moving ridge for each gait cycle (Effigy 3). Following initial contact, the pelvis tilts posteriorly for less than xx% of the gait cycle. It then begins to tilt anteriorly again until the contralateral foot contacts the ground at approximately 50% of the gait cycle. The cycle and so repeats itself, tilting posteriorly, and anteriorly again. The total excursion of this motility is relatively pocket-size, approximately two to 5 degrees (Bruening et al. 2015; Crosbie, Vachalathiti, Smith 1997; Kadaba, Ramakrishnan, Wootten 1990; Murray, Drought, Kory 1964; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002). In our data, the hateful full excursion was 4.3 degrees with an SD of 1.1 degrees and range of two.6 to 7.3 degrees at preferred walking speed.

Sex-specific differences in pelvic move during gait. These information were the hateful from 22 healthy females and 22 salubrious males (walking at a controlled speed (1.25 m/s) on an instrumented treadmill. Information are presented as ipsilateral initial human foot contact (heel strike) to ipsilateral initial foot contact. The vertical gray line indicates contralateral initial foot contact. Differences in pelvic position and motion in all 3 planes can be observed. Females walk in more anterior pelvic tilt, and have greater excursion in pelvic obliquity, and slightly greater pelvic rotation while males maintain the pelvis closer to neutral tilt, and have less pelvic obliquity and rotation circuit.

In the frontal airplane, the pelvis completes one bicycle of motility throughout each gait cycle (Figure 3). At initial contact, the pelvis is approximately neutral with left and right ASIS being level (or 0 degrees of obliquity). Following contact, the pelvis drops for less than twenty% of the gait cycle, after which information technology begins to raise again. When the other foot contacts the footing, the pelvis is approximately neutral once again. If viewed relative to the initial human foot, the pelvis would be described as standing to hike. However, in some fields, it is customary to switch the perspective to the at present stance leg, and say that the pelvis is dropping again (Levangie and Norkin 2011). The total excursion for this motion is approximately 6 to xi degrees at preferred walking speed (Bruening et al. 2015; Chumanov, Wall-Scheffler, Heiderscheit 2008; Crosbie, Vachalathiti, Smith 1997; Kadaba, Ramakrishnan, Wootten 1990; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002; Stokes, Andersson, Forssberg 1989). In our data, the range was 1.9 to 12.five degrees with a mean full excursion of seven.4 degrees and SD of 2.v degrees walking at a preferred speed.

In the transverse plane, the pelvis completes one cycle of motion equally well (Figure three). At initial contact of the right foot, the pelvis is in backward rotation with the left ASIS posterior to the right ASIS. This backward rotation continues briefly during the double back up phase, and then changes to forward rotation of the pelvis. The frontward rotation continues until but after contralateral heel strike (around 50%). From the view indicate of the swing leg, the pelvis is then rotating backward again until simply after ipsilateral heel strike. Again, it is customary in some fields to switch the perspective and say that the pelvis is rotating forrad on the left leg (Levangie and Norkin 2011). The reported magnitude of the excursion of the pelvis in the transverse plane is as low equally 3 degrees (Crosbie, Vachalathiti, Smith 1997), and equally high as 14 degrees (Bruening et al. 2015) with nearly somewhere in between (Kadaba, Ramakrishnan, Wootten 1990; Kerrigan et al. 2001; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002; Stokes, Andersson, Forssberg 1989). Similarly, the range in our information was from iv.0 to 16.8 with a hateful and SD of nine.5 ± 2.9 at preferred walking speed.

Theoretically, these motions of the pelvis during human gait help to subtract the movement of the center of mass in the vertical and horizontal management (Neumann 2010a). In the vertical direction, the center of mass moves in a sinusoidal curve which reaches a maximum during each single leg opinion and a minimum during each double support menstruum when both feet are on the ground, resulting in two complete cycles per gait wheel (Neumann 2010a). In contrast, the sinusoidal movement in the horizontal direction completes ane cycle, shifting to the correct during right opinion and to the left during left stance (Neumann 2010a). Saunders and colleagues (1953) described vi "determinants of gait" – motions of the pelvis and lower extremities which were idea to minimize the move of the center of mass and thus be energetically economical. Two of these determinants were specifically well-nigh pelvic rotations during gait. The first determinant was the rotation of the pelvis in the transverse plane. For a given step length, this rotation of the pelvis would reduce the magnitude of the drib in the eye of mass which occurs during double back up. The second determinant was the pelvic motion in the frontal plane. The pelvic drop during unmarried leg stance lowers the maximum meridian of the pelvis and torso, and thus lowers the center of mass (Stokes, Andersson, Forssberg 1989).

The notion that pelvic and lower extremity movements "minimize" the circuit of the center of mass has come nether increasing scrutiny (Della Croce et al. 2001; Kerrigan et al. 2001; Lin, Gfoehler, Pandy 2014). Pelvic rotation in the transverse plane provides a small, but notable, reduction in center of mass circuit (Della Croce et al. 2001; Kerrigan et al. 2001; Lin, Gfoehler, Pandy 2014). Pelvis obliquity has been establish to contribute to the mediolateral excursion of the center of mass, but very trivial to the reduction of the vertical circuit (Lin, Gfoehler, Pandy 2014). When taken to the extreme of eliminating vertical motility of the eye of mass, Gordon and colleagues (2009) clearly demonstrate that metabolic cost and mechanical work in the lower extremity increase as a issue. Notwithstanding, information technology is still appreciated, especially when analyzing pathological gait, that normal pelvic motion plays a office in reducing exaggerated movements of the center of mass. Furthermore, the importance of the normal movement of the pelvis during gait has been highlighted in recent work. Restrictions of pelvic motion, every bit can occur in robotic assistive devices, lead to compensation in upper and lower extremity kinematics (Mun, Guo, Yu 2016; Veneman et al. 2008).

Sex-specific differences in pelvic motion in human gait

Simply as there are sex-specific differences in the shape of the pelvis, in that location are sex-specific differences in pelvic position and motion during gait (Bruening et al. 2015; Cho, Park, Kwon 2004; Chumanov, Wall-Scheffler, Heiderscheit 2008; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002). On boilerplate, females maintain the pelvis in a position of slight inductive pelvic tilt (approximately 4 degrees in our data) while males maintain the pelvis in a position closer to neutral (Cho, Park, Kwon 2004) but differences in the motion of the pelvis in the sagittal plane during walking are non typically noted (Bruening et al. 2015; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002).

In the frontal plane, females have more excursion of the pelvis while males accept less (Bruening et al. 2015; Chumanov, Wall-Scheffler, Heiderscheit 2008; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002) (Figure 3). The mean deviation between males and females in our written report was i.9 degrees (95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 0.9 to 2.nine degrees) which was significant (p < 0.001) as determined by an Independent-Samples T-Examination in SPSS (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). The increased frontal airplane motion may contribute to the smaller vertical deportation of the COM during gait as noted in females (Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002), further facilitating economical gait; even so, another report did not find differences in center of mass motion (Bruening et al. 2015).

Movement of the pelvis in the transverse plane is usually greater in females and bottom in males (Bruening et al. 2015; Chumanov, Wall-Scheffler, Heiderscheit 2008; Crosbie, Vachalathiti, Smith 1997). Similarly, we found a mean divergence of 2 degrees with a 95% CI of 0.six to 3.4 degrees (p = 0.029) when walking at the same speed. Conversely, Murray et al. (1970) reported slightly less transverse plane rotation in females and more in males; nonetheless, this finding may be due to the faster walking speed and longer pace length noted in the males in the comparative study (Murray, Drought, Kory 1964).

These differences in pelvic motility may contribute to or result from other differences between how males and females walk. For instance, walking speed can impact the magnitude of pelvic motility (Bejek et al. 2006; Crosbie, Vachalathiti, Smith 1997; Murray, Kory, Sepic 1970; Stokes, Andersson, Forssberg 1989). In our participants, at that place was not a difference in preferred walking speed between our males and females. The mean and SD of the preferred walking speed was 1.26 ± 0.17 1000/south in males and i.28 ± 0.sixteen m/southward in females (p = 0.735). Nevertheless, some studies have reported slower walking speeds in females and faster speeds in males (Cho, Park, Kwon 2004; Frimenko, Goodyear, Bruening 2015; Murray, Kory, Sepic 1970), merely no divergence in others (Bruening et al. 2015; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002). When detected, differences in walking speed may be due to differences in height as the effect is oftentimes lost afterward normalizing for summit (Cho, Park, Kwon 2004; Frimenko, Goodyear, Bruening 2015) or including summit equally a co-variate (Cho, Park, Kwon 2004).

Additionally, females tend to walk with a faster cadence while males walk with a slower cadency at their cocky-selected speed (Boyer, Beaupre, Andriacchi 2008; Frimenko, Goodyear, Bruening 2015; Kerrigan et al. 1998; Murray, Kory, Sepic 1970; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002). Pace length has too been constitute to be different between the sexes with females taking shorter steps while males have longer ones (Cho, Park, Kwon 2004; Frimenko, Goodyear, Bruening 2015; Murray, Kory, Sepic 1970; Smith, Lelas, Kerrigan 2002). Again, this difference may be due to acme differences and not pelvic structure equally stride length was actually longer later on normalization (Kerrigan et al. 1998).

Altered gait in the presence of abnormal acetabular construction

In individuals with altered acetabular anatomy, slight differences in pelvic and hip kinematics during walking have been noted. Patients with acetabular dysplasia have altered pelvic and hip kinematics during walking. In individuals with dysplasia, Romano et al. (1996) reported significantly increased pelvic driblet and forward displacement during opinion on their affected side. This was accompanied by decreased transverse aeroplane pelvic excursion compared to individuals without dysplasia. At the hip, decreased peak hip extension (Jacobsen et al. 2013; Romano et al. 1996; Skalshøi et al. 2015) have also been reported. While no studies to date accept looked exclusively at pincer FAI separate from its femoral counterpart (cam FAI), minimal changes in gait have been reported in individuals with FAI. For instance, Hunt et al. (2013) found that individuals with FAI walked slower than healthy controls and had lower peak hip extension, adduction and internal rotation. When walking at similar speeds, Diamond et al., (2016) institute merely a minor reduction in the sagittal airplane hip excursion in individuals with FAI compared to healthy controls. It is idea, however, that gait does not challenge the hip sufficiently to detect changes with FAI (Diamond et al. 2016).

Conclusions

In summary, the construction of the human pelvis reflects the transition to habitual bipedality. The pelvic motions during gait serve to optimize the movement of the center of mass, producing polish and energetically efficient locomotion. Normal variation in the construction of the pelvis and its movement during gait be between sexes. It remains unclear if these sex activity-specific differences during gait are related to specific pelvic construction or to differences in body size and height. Specific variations in the structure of the acetabulum may contribute to hip pain and pathology. These variations are noted more often in females than males. In the presence of abnormal acetabular structure, especially with acetabular dysplasia, the pelvic motions as well may be altered. While it is suggested that coxa profunda may be energetically beneficial, it is non well established why these variations occur or how the variation affects gait.

Acknowledgments

Grant sponsor: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Pare Diseases of the National Institutes of Health; Grant number: K23 AR063235

References

• Abitbol MM. The shapes of the female pelvis. contributing factors. J Reprod Med. 1996;41(4):242–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Abouheif E, Fairbairn DJ. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Assessing rensch's rule. Am Nat. 1997:540–62. [Google Scholar]
• Agricola R, Heijboer Thou, Roze R, Reijman M, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Verhaar J, Weinans H, Waarsing J. Pincer deformity does not lead to osteoarthritis of the hip whereas acetabular dysplasia does: Acetabular coverage and development of osteoarthritis in a nationwide prospective cohort study (Cheque) Osteoarthr Cartil. 2013;21(10):1514–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, Schwab FJ, Le Huec JC, Massicotte EM, Patel AA, Traynelis VC, Kim HJ, Shaffrey CI, et al. Cervical radiographical alignment: Comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S149–sixty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Anderson LA, Kapron AL, Aoki SK, Peters CL. Coxa profunda: Is the deep acetabulum overcovered? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(12):3375–82. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bache CE, Clegg J, Herron M. Take a chance factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip: Ultrasonographic findings in the neonatal period. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2002;xi(3):212–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Badyaev AV. Growing apart: An ontogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2002;17(8):369–78. [Google Scholar]
• Bejek Z, Paroczai R, Illyes A, Kiss RM. The influence of walking speed on gait parameters in healthy people and in patients with osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(7):612–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Berge C. How did the australopithecines walk? A biomechanical study of the hip and thigh of australopithecus afarensis. J Hum Evol. 1994;26(4):259–73. [Google Scholar]
• Berge C, Orban-Segebarth R, Schmid P. Obstetrical interpretation of the australopithecine pelvic cavity. J Hum Evol. 1984;13(7):573–87. [Google Scholar]
• Birrell F, Silman A, Croft P, Cooper C, Hosie G, Macfarlane Thou PCR Hip Study Grouping. Syndrome of symptomatic adult acetabular dysplasia (SAAD syndrome) Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62(iv):356–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Boyer KA, Beaupre GS, Andriacchi TP. Gender differences exist in the hip joint moments of salubrious older walkers. J Biomech. 2008;41(16):3360–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bramble DM, Lieberman DE. Endurance running and the evolution of human. Nature. 2004;432(7015):345–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Brooke R. The sacro-iliac joint. J Anat. 1924;58(Pt iv):299–305. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bruening DA, Frimenko RE, Goodyear CD, Bowden DR, Fullenkamp AM. Sex differences in whole body gait kinematics at preferred speeds. Gait Posture. 2015;41(2):540–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Caldwell W, Moloy HC. Anatomical variations in the female pelvis and their effect in labor with a suggested classification. Obstet Gynecol. 1933;26(4):479–505. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cappozzo A, Della Croce U, Leardini A, Chiari Fifty. Man movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry: Part ane: Theoretical background. Gait Posture. 2005;21(2):186–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chegini S, Beck Thou, Ferguson SJ. The effects of impingement and dysplasia on stress distributions in the hip articulation during sitting and walking: A finite element analysis. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(two):195–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cho S, Park J, Kwon O. Gender differences in three dimensional gait analysis data from 98 healthy korean adults. Clin Biomech. 2004;19(ii):145–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chumanov ES, Wall-Scheffler C, Heiderscheit BC. Gender differences in walking and running on level and inclined surfaces. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2008;23(ten):1260–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chung CY, Park MS, Lee KM, Lee SH, Kim TK, Kim KW, Park JH, Lee JJ. Hip osteoarthritis and run a risk factors in elderly korean population. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010;18(3):312–vi. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Clohisy JC, Dobson MA, Robison JF, Warth LC, Zheng J, Liu SS, Yehyawi TM, Callaghan JJ. Radiographic structural abnormalities associated with premature, natural hip-articulation failure. J Os Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(Suppl 2):three–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaule PE, Kim YJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, Leunig M, Schoenecker PL, Millis MB. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;ninety(Suppl 4):47–66. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Crosbie J, Vachalathiti R, Smith R. Age, gender and speed effects on spinal kinematics during walking. Gait Posture. 1997;five(1):13–20. [Google Scholar]
• Crowell RD, Cummings GS, Walker JR, Tillman LJ. Intratester and intertester reliability and validity of measures of innominate bone inclination. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994;twenty(2):88–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Della Croce U, Riley PO, Lelas JL, Kerrigan DC. A refined view of the determinants of gait. Gait Posture. 2001;14(2):79–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Diamond LE, Wrigley Tv set, Bennell KL, Hinman RS, O'Donnell J, Hodges Pw. Hip joint biomechanics during gait in people with and without symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. Gait Posture. 2016;43:198–203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Diesel CV, Ribeiro TA, Coussirat C, Scheidt RB, Macedo CA, Galia CR. Coxa profunda in the diagnosis of pincer-blazon femoroacetabular impingement and its prevalence in asymptomatic subjects. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(4):478–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Domb BG, Martin DE, Botser IB. Take a chance factors for ligamentum teres tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(1):64–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dunsworth HM, Warrener AG, Deacon T, Ellison PT, Pontzer H. Metabolic hypothesis for human altriciality. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(38):15212–6. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Frank JM, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, Slikker W, Bush-league-Joseph CA, Salata MJ, Nho SJ. Prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement imaging findings in asymptomatic volunteers: A systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(half dozen):1199–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Frimenko R, Goodyear C, Bruening D. Interactions of sex activity and aging on spatiotemporal metrics in non-pathological gait: A descriptive meta-analysis. Physiotherapy. 2015;101(3):266–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ganz R, Klaue One thousand, Vinh TS, Mast JW. A new periacetabular osteotomy for the handling of hip dysplasias. technique and preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;(232):26–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ganz R, Parvizi J, Brook Grand, Leunig Thousand, Notzli H, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: A cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop. 2003;(417):112–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Garbossa D, Pejrona K, Damilano Grand, Sansone V, Ducati A, Berjano P. Pelvic parameters and global spine balance for spine degenerative disease: The importance of containing for the well beingness of content. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(vi):616–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gordon KE, Ferris DP, Kuo AD. Metabolic and mechanical energy costs of reducing vertical centre of mass motility during gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;xc(1):136–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hagen R. Pelvic girdle relaxation from an orthopaedic point of view. Acta Orthop Scand. 1974;45(1–iv):550–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Harris-Hayes M, Royer NK. Human relationship of acetabular dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement to hip osteoarthritis: A focused review. Pm&r. 2011;3(11):1055, 1067.e1. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Häusler Thou, Schmid P. Comparison of the pelves of Sts fourteen and AL288-1: implications for nascency and sexual dimorphism in australopithecines. J Hum Evol. 1995;29(4):363–83. [Google Scholar]
• Hickman JM, Peters CL. Hip pain in the immature developed: Diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the acetabular labrum and acetabular dysplasia. Am J Orthop. 2001;30(6):459–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hlavacek M. The influence of the acetabular labrum seal, intact articular superficial zone and synovial fluid thixotropy on squeeze-motion-picture show lubrication of a spherical synovial articulation. J Biomech. 2002;35(0021-9290; x):1325–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hogervorst T, Bouma H, de Boer SF, de Vos J. Human hip impingement morphology: An evolutionary explanation. J Os Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(half dozen):769–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Horii M, Kubo T, Inoue S, Kim WC. Coverage of the femoral head by the acetabular labrum in dysplastic hips: Quantitative analysis with radial MR imaging. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(3):287–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hunt KD. The evolution of homo bipedality: Environmental and functional morphology. J Hum Evol. 1994;26(3):183–202. [Google Scholar]
• Hunt MA, Gunether JR, Gilbart MK. Kinematic and kinetic differences during walking in patients with and without symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Biomech. 2013;28(v):519–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Huseynov A, Zollikofer CP, Coudyzer Due west, Gascho D, Kellenberger C, Hinzpeter R, de León MS. Developmental evidence for obstetric accommodation of the human female pelvis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(xix):5227–32. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jacobsen JS, Nielsen DB, Sørensen H, Søballe K, Mechlenburg I. Changes in walking and running in patients with hip dysplasia. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(3):265–70. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kadaba MP, Ramakrishnan HK, Wootten ME. Measurement of lower extremity kinematics during level walking. J Orthop Res. 1990;viii(0736-0266; 3):383–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kendall FP, McCreary EK, Provance PG. Muscles testing and office. Baltimore, Doc: Williams & Wilkins; 1993. [Google Scholar]
• Kerrigan DC, Riley PO, Lelas JL, Della Croce U. Quantification of pelvic rotation equally a determinant of gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(2):217–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kerrigan DC, Todd MK, Della Croce U, Lipsitz LA, Collins JJ. Biomechanical gait alterations independent of speed in the healthy elderly: Show for specific limiting impairments. Curvation Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(three):317–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kivlan BR, Richard Clemente F, Martin RL, Martin HD. Function of the ligamentum teres during multi-planar movement of the hip joint. Genu Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(vii):1664–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Klaue 1000, Durnin CW, Ganz R. The acetabular rim syndrome. A clinical presentation of dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(3):423–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kurki HK. Pelvic dimorphism in relation to body size and body size dimorphism in humans. J Hum Evol. 2011;61(6):631–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lane NE, Lin P, Christiansen 50, Gore LR, Williams EN, Hochberg MC, Nevitt MC. Association of mild acetabular dysplasia with an increased risk of incident hip osteoarthritis in elderly white women: The written report of osteoporotic fractures. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43(2):400–four. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Leonard WR, Robertson ML. Energetic efficiency of homo bipedality. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1995;97(three):335–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Leunig M, Podeszwa D, Brook Yard, Werlen S, Ganz R. Magnetic resonance arthrography of labral disorders in hips with dysplasia and impingement. Clin Orthop. 2004;(418):74–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Levangie PK, Norkin CC. Joint structure and function: A comprehensive assay. FA Davis; 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Levine D, Whittle MW. The effects of pelvic motion on lumbar lordosis in the standing position. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996;24(3):130–v. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lewis CL, Khuu A, Marinko LN. Postural correction reduces hip pain in adult with acetabular dysplasia: A instance report. Homo Ther. 2015;xx(iii):508–12. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lievense AM, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Verhagen AP, Verhaar JA, Koes BW. Influence of hip dysplasia on the development of osteoarthritis of the hip. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(6):621–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lin Y, Gfoehler M, Pandy MG. Quantitative evaluation of the major determinants of man gait. J Biomech. 2014;47(6):1324–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Loder RT, Skopelja EN. The epidemiology and demographics of hip dysplasia. ISRN Orthopedics. 2011 2011. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lovejoy CO, Meindl RS, Pryzbeck TR, Mensforth RP. Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: A new method for the determination of developed skeletal age at death. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1985;68(one):xv–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lovejoy CO, Suwa G, Spurlock 50, Asfaw B, White TD. The pelvis and femur of ardipithecus ramidus: The emergence of upright walking. Science. 2009;326(5949):71–71e6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lovejoy CO. The natural history of homo gait and posture. part 2. hip and thigh. Gait Posture. 2005;21(1):113–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Martin RL, Kivlan BR, Clemente FR. A cadaveric model for ligamentum teres function: A airplane pilot report. Knee joint Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(7):1689–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mavcic B, Iglic A, Kralj-Iglic 5, Make RA, Vengust R. Cumulative hip contact stress predicts osteoarthritis in DDH. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(four):884–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McCarthy JC, Lee JA. Acetabular dysplasia: A paradigm of arthroscopic examination of chondral injuries. Clin Orthop. 2002;(405):122–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McWilliams DF, Doherty SA, Jenkins WD, Maciewicz RA, Muir KR, Zhang Due west, Doherty Chiliad. Mild acetabular dysplasia and risk of osteoarthritis of the hip: A case-control study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(x):1774–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Meindl RS, Lovejoy CO, Mensforth RP, Carlos LD. Accuracy and direction of error in the sexing of the skeleton: Implications for paleodemography. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1985;68(1):79–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Merle C, Grammatopoulos G, Waldstein W, Pegg East, Pandit H, Aldinger PR, Gill HS, Murray DW. Comparison of native anatomy with recommended safe component orientation in total hip arthroplasty for chief osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(22):e172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Michaud SB, Gard SA, Childress DS. A preliminary investigation of pelvic obliquity patterns during gait in persons with transtibial and transfemoral amputation. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2000;37(1):ane. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mun Thou, Guo Z, Yu H. Restriction of pelvic lateral and rotational motions alters lower limb kinematics and musculus activation blueprint during over-ground walking. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2016:ane–nine. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tater SB, Ganz R, Muller ME. The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the result. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(vii):985–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(2):228–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Murray MP, Kory RC, Sepic SB. Walking patterns of normal women. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1970;51(11):637–fifty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Murray MP, Drought AB, Kory RC. Walking patterns of normal men. J Bone Articulation Surg Am. 1964;46:335–sixty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Murray RO. The aetiology of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. Br J Radiol. 1965;38(455):810–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nepple JJ, Lehmann CL, Ross JR, Schoenecker PL, Clohisy JC. Coxa profunda is not a useful radiographic parameter for diagnosing pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(5):417–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system: Foundations for rehabilitation. 2. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2010a. [Google Scholar]
• Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the hip: A focus on muscular deportment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010b;forty(two):82–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nunley RM, Prather H, Hunt D, Schoenecker PL, Clohisy JC. Clinical presentation of symptomatic acetabular dysplasia in skeletally mature patients. J Os Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(Suppl 2):17–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ogamba MI, Loverro KL, Laudicina NM, Gill SV, Lewis CL. Changes in gait with anteriorly added mass: A pregnancy simulation written report. J Appl Biomech 2016 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• O'Neill MC, Lee L, Demes B, Thompson NE, Larson SG, Stern JT, Umberger BR. Three-dimensional kinematics of the pelvis and hind limbs in chimpanzee (pan troglodytes) and human bipedal walking. J Hum Evol. 2015;86:32–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Patel H and Canadian Chore Strength on Preventive Health Care. Preventive health care, 2001 update: Screening and management of developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns. Cmaj. 2001;164(12):1669–77. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Perreira Ac, Hunter JC, Laird T, Jamali AA. Multilevel measurement of acetabular version using iii-D CT-generated models: Implications for hip preservation surgery. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2011;469(2):552–61. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Peters CL, Erickson J. The etiology and handling of hip pain in the young adult. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 4):20–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Petersen W, Petersen F, Tillmann B. Construction and vascularization of the acetabular labrum with regard to the pathogenesis and healing of labral lesions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(0936-8051; 6):283–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reijman M, Hazes JM, Pols HA, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM. Acetabular dysplasia predicts incident osteoarthritis of the hip: The rotterdam report. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(3):787–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Retchford Thursday, Crossley KM, Grimaldi A, Kemp JL, Cowan SM. Can local muscles augment stability in the hip? A narrative literature review. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2013;13(1):1–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip hurting. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(0301-620; ii):281–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Robinson JT. Early hominid posture and locomotion. University of Chicago Printing; 1972. [Google Scholar]
• Romano CL, Frigo C, Randelli G, Pedotti A. Analysis of the gait of adults who had residua of congenital dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Articulation Surg Am. 1996;78(10):1468–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rosenberg KR. The evolution of modernistic human childbirth. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992;35(S15):89–124. [Google Scholar]
• Rosendahl K, Markestad T, Lie RT. Ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in the neonate: The effect on treatment rate and prevalence of late cases. Pediatrics. 1994;94(ane):47–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;xxx(3):346–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ruff C. Primate locomotion. Springer; 1998. Evolution of the hominid hip; 449 pp. [Google Scholar]
• Saunders JB, Inman VT, Eberhart Hard disk. The major determinants in normal and pathological gait. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1953;35-A(iii):543–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schultz AH. Sexual practice differences in the pelves of primates. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1949;7(3):401–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Simpson SW, Quade J, Levin NE, Butler R, Dupont-Nivet Grand, Everett M, Semaw South. A female Homo erectus pelvis from Gona, Ethiopia. Scientific discipline. 2008;322(5904):1089–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Skalshøi O, Iversen CH, Nielsen DB, Jacobsen J, Mechlenburg I, Søballe G, Sørensen H. Walking patterns and hip contact forces in patients with hip dysplasia. Gait Posture. 2015;42(4):529–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Smith LK, Lelas JL, Kerrigan DC. Gender differences in pelvic motions and center of mass displacement during walking: Stereotypes quantified. J Womens Health Gend Based. 2002;xi(5):453–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stern JT, Jr, Susman RL. The locomotor anatomy of australopithecus afarensis. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983;60(3):279–317. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stokes V, Andersson C, Forssberg H. Rotational and translational motility features of the pelvis and thorax during adult human being locomotion. J Biomech. 1989;22(1):43–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Storer SK, Skaggs DL. Developmental dysplasia of the hip. Am Fam Physician. 2006;74(8):1310–half-dozen. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tague RG. Sexual dimorphism in the man bony pelvis, with a consideration of the neandertal pelvis from kebara cave, israel. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992;88(1):1–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tague RG. Variation in pelvic size between males and females. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1989;80(1):59–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tague RG, Lovejoy CO. The obstetric pelvis of AL 288-1 (lucy) J Hum Evol. 1986;xv(4):237–55. [Google Scholar]
• Tan V, Seldes RM, Katz MA, Freedhand AM, Klimkiewicz JJ, Fitzgerald RH., Jr Contribution of acetabular labrum to articulating surface area and femoral caput coverage in developed hip joints: An anatomic study in cadavera. Am J Orthop. 2001;30(1078-4519; 11):809–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: Radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1540–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tannast G, Kubiak-Langer M, Langlotz F, Puls M, Murphy SB, Siebenrock KA. Noninvasive three-dimensional assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res. 2007;25(1):122–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Veneman JF, Menger J, van Asseldonk EH, van der Helm Frans CT, van der Kooij H. Fixating the pelvis in the horizontal plane affects gait characteristics. Gait Posture. 2008;28(i):157–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ward CV. Interpreting the posture and locomotion of australopithecus afarensis: Where do we stand? Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002;119(S35):185–215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Warrener AG, Lewton KL, Pontzer H, Lieberman DE. A wider pelvis does not increase locomotor cost in humans, with implications for the evolution of childbirth. PloS One. 2015;10(three):e0118903. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Werner CM, Ramseier LE, Ruckstuhl T, Stromberg J, Copeland CE, Turen CH, Rufibach Thou, Bouaicha S. Normal values of wiberg's lateral centre-edge angle and lequesne's acetabular index-a coxometric update. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41(x):1273–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• White TD, Black MT, Folkens PA. Human osteology. Academic press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
• White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, Haile-Selassie Y, Lovejoy CO, Suwa G, WoldeGabriel G. Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids. Scientific discipline. 2009;326(5949):64–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Zihlman AL, Brunker 50. Hominid bipedalism: Then and now. Yb.Physical Anthropol. 1979;22:132–62. [Google Scholar]

stephensonthation.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5545133/

Share this post