Open‐Source and Commercial 3‐Dimensional Computed Tomography Methods Show Limited Agreement for Classifying Acetabular Morphology in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy
4 affiliations
- 1Division of Orthopedics Rady Children's Hospital‐San Diego San Diego California U.S.A.
- 2California Health Sciences University Clovis California U.S.A.
- 3Hoag Orthopedic Institute Irvine California U.S.A.
- 4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery University of California San Diego San Diego California U.S.A.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare acetabular morphology classifications derived from a validated open‐source (freely available) method with those derived from commercially available software in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
Methods: We analyzed preoperative 3‐dimensional computed tomography imaging in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome using open‐source and commercial software. The open‐source method calculated acetabular coverage across 5 regions and generated z‐scores relative to an internal normative database. Hips with z‐scores ≥2 or ≤−2 were classified as abnormal. The commercial method categorized hips as normal, undercovered, or overcovered based on published thresholds (lateral center‐edge angle, Tönnis angle, coverage percentage, and crossover sign) and focal depth mapping. The primary outcome was categorical agreement between methods.
Results: Seventy‐six hips (55 women, 21 men; mean age 35.5 ± 12.3 years) were included. The open‐source method classified 58/76 hips as normal, 10/76 as dysplastic, and 8/76 as overcovered. The commercial method classified 14/76 hips as normal, 29/76 as undercovered, and 33/76 as overcovered. A total of 23/76 hips were classified the same in both systems and called agreed. Disagreements (53/76 hips) fell into 3 categories: (1) essentially similar despite different labels because of borderline z‐scores or small focal areas (n = 24), (2) disagreements driven by Tönnis angle alone (n = 8), and (3) true disagreements (n = 21). Notably, 5 hips (6.6%) showed opposite classifications (e.g., dysplastic vs overcovered). Subanalysis of z‐scores showed that 69.8% of disagreements reflected borderline morphology (z‐scores of ±1‐2).
Conclusions: Although both open‐source and commercial methods provide 3‐dimensional classification of acetabular morphology, categorical agreement was limited. Most disagreements reflected borderline morphology or small focal areas of uncertain clinical relevance. A minority showed true classification opposites.
Clinical Relevance: Awareness of the methodological differences between open‐source and commercial 3‐dimensional computed tomography platforms may help surgeons appropriately interpret acetabular morphology classifications during preoperative planning for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
Related
- Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography–Based Mapping of the Intraosseous Safe Zone for Acetabular Cup Screw Fixation
- A Case Report on Multiple Impacted Teeth: A Three-Dimensional Radiological Evaluation by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
- Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy-guided three-dimensional conformal microwave ablation for unresectable peripheral high-risk pulmonary nodules: a mid-term assessment with no real-time intraoperative CT/cone-beam computed tomography guidance
- A Three-Dimensional Radiological Evaluation of a Nasopalatine Cyst by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Case Report
- Normal values of femoral head coverage angles on three-dimensional computed tomography images
BibTeX
@article{ellingwood2026opensource,
title = {{Open‐Source and Commercial 3‐Dimensional Computed Tomography Methods Show Limited Agreement for Classifying Acetabular Morphology in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy}},
author = {Ashley A. Ellingwood and Rajvarun S. Grewal and Henry M. Gass and Alisha Chen and Daniel Woo and Byron V. L. Beasley and James D. Bomar and Kevin C. Parvaresh and Vidyadhar V. Upasani and Matthew R. Schmitz},
journal = {Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1002/ars2.70148},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13729695},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Open‐Source and Commercial 3‐Dimensional Computed Tomography Methods Show Limited Agreement for Classifying Acetabular Morphology in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy
AU - Ashley A. Ellingwood
AU - Rajvarun S. Grewal
AU - Henry M. Gass
AU - Alisha Chen
AU - Daniel Woo
AU - Byron V. L. Beasley
AU - James D. Bomar
AU - Kevin C. Parvaresh
AU - Vidyadhar V. Upasani
AU - Matthew R. Schmitz
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation
DO - 10.1002/ars2.70148
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13729695
AB - Purpose: To compare acetabular morphology classifications derived from a validated open‐source (freely available) method with those derived from commercially available software in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Methods: We analyzed preoperative 3‐dimensional computed tomography imaging in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome using open‐source and commercial software. The open‐source method calculated acetabular coverage across 5 regions and generated z‐scores relative to an internal normative database. Hips with z‐scores ≥2 or ≤−2 were classified as abnormal. The commercial method categorized hips as normal, undercovered, or overcovered based on published thresholds (lateral center‐edge angle, Tönnis angle, coverage percentage, and crossover sign) and focal depth mapping. The primary outcome was categorical agreement between methods. Results: Seventy‐six hips (55 women, 21 men; mean age 35.5 ± 12.3 years) were included. The open‐source method classified 58/76 hips as normal, 10/76 as dysplastic, and 8/76 as overcovered. The commercial method classified 14/76 hips as normal, 29/76 as undercovered, and 33/76 as overcovered. A total of 23/76 hips were classified the same in both systems and called agreed. Disagreements (53/76 hips) fell into 3 categories: (1) essentially similar despite different labels because of borderline z‐scores or small focal areas (n = 24), (2) disagreements driven by Tönnis angle alone (n = 8), and (3) true disagreements (n = 21). Notably, 5 hips (6.6%) showed opposite classifications (e.g., dysplastic vs overcovered). Subanalysis of z‐scores showed that 69.8% of disagreements reflected borderline morphology (z‐scores of ±1‐2). Conclusions: Although both open‐source and commercial methods provide 3‐dimensional classification of acetabular morphology, categorical agreement was limited. Most disagreements reflected borderline morphology or small focal areas of uncertain clinical relevance. A minority showed true classification opposites. Clinical Relevance: Awareness of the methodological differences between open‐source and commercial 3‐dimensional computed tomography platforms may help surgeons appropriately interpret acetabular morphology classifications during preoperative planning for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
SN - 2666-061X
ER -