Cited by 56Hip disorders and treatmentsLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesShoulder Injury and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Cliff Sign: A New Radiographic Sign of Hip Instability

Open access

Abstract

Background: The preoperative diagnosis of hip microinstability is challenging. Although physical examination maneuvers and magnetic resonance imaging findings associated with microinstability have been described, there are limited reports of radiographic features. In patients with microinstability, we observed a high incidence of a steep drop-off on the lateral edge of the femoral head, which we have named the “cliff sign.” Purpose: (1) To determine the relationship of the cliff sign and associated measurements with intraoperative microinstability and (2) to determine the interobserver reliability of these measurements. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 115 consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy were identified. Patients with prior hip surgery, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, fractures, pigmented villonodular synovitis, or synovial chondromatosis were excluded, resulting in the inclusion of 96 patients in the study. A perfect circle around the femoral head was created on anteroposterior pelvis radiographs. If the lateral femoral head did not completely fill the perfect circle, it was considered a positive cliff sign. Five additional measurements relating to the cliff sign were calculated. The diagnosis of microinstability was made intraoperatively by the (1) amount of traction required to distract the hip, (2) lack of hip reduction after initial traction release following joint venting, or (3) intraoperative findings consistent with hip microinstability. Continuous variables were analyzed through use of unpaired t tests and discrete variables with Fisher exact tests. Interobserver reliability (n = 3) was determined for each measurement. Results: Overall, 89% (39/44) of patients with microinstability had a cliff sign, compared with 27% of patients (14/52) without instability ( P < .0001). Conversely, 74% of patients with a cliff sign had microinstability, while only 12% of patients without a cliff sign had instability ( P < .0001). In women younger than 32 years with a cliff sign, 100% (20/20) were diagnosed with instability. No differences were found in any of the 5 additional measurements. Excellent interobserver reliability was found for the presence of a cliff sign and the cliff angle measurement. Conclusion: We have identified a radiographic finding, the cliff sign, that is associated with the intraoperative diagnosis of hip microinstability and has excellent interobserver reliability. Results showed that 100% of young women with a cliff sign had intraoperative microinstability. The cliff sign may be useful in the preoperative diagnosis of hip microinstability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2325967118807176

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. The cliff sign. A perfect circle is created around the femoral head. If the lateral femoral head does not completely fill the perfect circle, it is considered a positive cliff sign (top row). Also shown is a femoral head that does completely fill the perfect circle laterally and is considered a negative cliff sign (bottom row).
Figure 1. The cliff sign. A perfect circle is created around the femoral head. If the lateral femoral head does not completely fill the perfect circle, it is considered a positive cliff sign (top row). Also shown is a femoral head that does completely fill the perfect circle laterally and is considered a negative cliff sign (bottom row).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Five additional measurements: (A) cliff angle; (B) reverse alpha angle; (C) cliff/femoral neck Cobb angle; (D) cliff/femoral shaft Cobb angle; (E) cliff length/femoral head (FH) diameter ratio.
Figure 2. Five additional measurements: (A) cliff angle; (B) reverse alpha angle; (C) cliff/femoral neck Cobb angle; (D) cliff/femoral shaft Cobb angle; (E) cliff length/femoral head (FH) diameter ratio.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Intraoperative fluoroscopy images of a patient with microinstability. The hip is distracted with only manual traction (left). After an air arthrogram (middle), the hip remains subluxated after traction is released (right).
Figure 3. Intraoperative fluoroscopy images of a patient with microinstability. The hip is distracted with only manual traction (left). After an air arthrogram (middle), the hip remains subluxated after traction is released (right).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Graph comparing the percentages of patients with a cliff sign for the group of patients with microinstability and the group without microinstability.
Figure 4. Graph comparing the percentages of patients with a cliff sign for the group of patients with microinstability and the group without microinstability.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Graph comparing the percentages of patients with microinstability in the groups with positive and negative cliff sign.
Figure 5. Graph comparing the percentages of patients with microinstability in the groups with positive and negative cliff sign.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.08.288 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/0363546510386002 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.07.009 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.04.057 · DOI
  5. 10.1177/0363546513499154 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1007/s00167-016-4411-8 · DOI
  7. Fleiss J, 1986, The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments
  8. 10.1054/arth.2002.27674 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/2325967117740121 · DOI
  10. 10.1177/0363546515620391 · DOI
  11. 10.1007/s00167-016-4377-6 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/jhps/hnv017 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.005 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.07.261 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.08.024 · DOI
  16. 10.1007/s00167-012-2262-5 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s00167-013-2591-z · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.049 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/0363546511412161 · DOI
  20. 10.1177/2325967114561962 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s00167-012-2091-6 · DOI
  22. 10.1177/0363546517697296 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/s00167-016-4342-4 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.csm.2010.12.008 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.01.007 · DOI
  26. 10.1302/0301-620X.97B4.34638 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.067 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.049 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/s11999-016-5137-0 · DOI
  30. 10.1177/0363546515608162 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 56

Metadata

Authors
Packer, J. D., Cowan, J. B., Rebolledo, B. J., Shibata, K. R., Riley, G. M., Finlay, A. K., & Safran, M. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Scripps Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Safran, Marc R.
Venue
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Published
2018-11-01
Volume
6
Issue
11
Pages
2325967118807176-2325967118807176
ISSN
2325-9671 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2757738087
Cited by
56
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip disorders and treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Shoulder Injury and Treatment
Keywords
hip microinstability, femoral head, radiographic findings, hip arthroscopy, intraoperative diagnosis, inter-rater reliability, hip reduction, young women, preoperative diagnosis, femoral neck stress fracture, femoral head resorption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review