Accuracy and reliability of 2D and 3D femoral version measurements on CT scans of 3D-printed haptic femur models: which method is most robust to changes in hip position?

AimsTo evaluate how abnormal proximal femoral anatomy affects different femoral version measurements in young patients with hip pain.MethodsFirst, femoral version was measured in 50 hips of symptomatic consecutively selected patients with hip pain (mean age 20 years (SD 6), 60% (n = 25) females) on preoperative CT scans using different measurement methods: Lee et al, Reikerås et al, Tomczak et al, and Murphy et al. Neck-shaft angle (NSA) and α angle were measured on coronal and radial CT images. Second, CT scans from three patients with femoral retroversion, normal femoral version, and anteversion were used to create 3D femur models, which were manipulated to generate models with different NSAs and different cam lesions, resulting in eight models per patient. Femoral version measurements were repeated on manipulated femora.ResultsComparing the different measurement methods for femoral version resulted in a maximum mean difference of 18° (95% CI 16 to 20) between the most proximal (Lee et al) and most distal (Murphy et al) methods. Higher differences in proximal and distal femoral version measurement techniques were seen in femora with greater femoral version (r > 0.46; p < 0.001) and greater NSA (r > 0.37; p = 0.008) between all measurement methods. In the parametric 3D manipulation analysis, differences in femoral version increased 11° and 9° in patients with high and normal femoral version, respectively, with increasing NSA (110° to 150°).ConclusionMeasurement of femoral version angles differ depending on the method used to almost 20°, which is in the range of the aimed surgical correction in derotational femoral osteotomy and thus can be considered clinically relevant. Differences between proximal and distal measurement methods further increase by increasing femoral version and NSA. Measurement methods that take the entire proximal femur into account by using distal landmarks may produce more sensitive measurements of these differences.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):759–766.

AimsFrequency of abnormal femoral and acetabular version (AV) and combinations are unclear in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). This study aimed to investigate femoral version (FV), the proportion of increased FV and femoral retroversion, and combined-version (CV, FV+AV) in DDH patients and acetabular-retroversion (AR). Patients and methodsA retrospective IRB-approved observational study was performed with 78 symptomatic DDH patients (90 hips) and 65 patients with femoroacetabular-impingement (FAI) due to AR (77 hips, diagnosis on AP radiographs). CT/MRI-based measurement of FV (Murphy method) and central AV were compared. Frequency of increased FV(FV > 25°), severely increased FV (FV > 35°) and excessive FV (FV > 45°) and of decreased FV (FV < 10°) and CV (McKibbin-index/COTAV-index) was analysed. ResultsMean FV and CV was significantly (p < 0.001) increased of DDH patients (mean ± SD of 25 ± 11° and 47 ± 18°) compared to AR (16 ± 11° and 28 ± 13°). Mean FV of female DDH patients (27 ± 16°) and AR (19 ± 12°) was significantly (p < 0.001) increased compared to male DDH patients (18 ± 13°) and AR (13 ± 8°). Frequency of increased FV (>25°) was 47% and of severely increased FV (>35°) was 23% for DDH patients.Proportion of femoral retroversion (FV < 10°) was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in patients AR (31%) compared to DDH patients (17%). 18% of DDH patients had AV > 25° combined with FV > 25°. Of patients with AR, 12% had FV < 10° combined with AV < 10°. ConclusionPatients with DDH and AR have remarkable sex-related differences of FV and CV. Frequency of severely increased FV > 35° (23%) is considerable for patients with DDH, but 17% exhibited decreased FV, that could influence management. The different combinations underline the importance of patient-specific evaluation before open hip preservation surgery (periacetabular osteotomy and femoral derotation osteotomy) and hip-arthroscopy.

Background: Accurate measurement of femoral version is essential for diagnosing rotational deformities, determining the need for surgical intervention, or establishing the extent of correction required. However, in the literature numerous measurement techniques have been described. This study aims to 1) Evaluate the differences among different 2- and 3- dimensional (2D/3D) techniques for measuring femoral version; 2) Investigate intra- and inter-observer reliability of measurements amongst orthopaedic surgeons and radiologists; and 3) Assess effect of version on differences between measurement techniques. Methods: This is a retrospective, single-, academic- center, study. One-hundred patients/femora that underwent hip preservation surgery were analyzed (measured and segmented). Pelvic CT scans, which included the distal femur, were utilized to measure femoral version, employing different sets of landmarks as per different definitions Four well-described and commonly used measurements were determined. Those were from femoral version measurements from axial slices (2D) of the hip and knee (Murphy and Reikeras methods), or from 3D reconstructions of segmented femurs (Sugano and Lee methods) were performed. Four assessors performed the axial measurements (1 hip preservation fellow; 2 young adult hip staff surgeon and 1 MSK radiologist). Measurements were performed relative to the posterior- and inter-epicondylar- axes. Discrepancies between the different techniques and the inter-observer correlations were determined. Results: The mean anteversion according to the 4 methods varied between 8.9°±11.6 (Reikeras; lowest) to 16.3°±12.2 (Murphy; highest). Referencing off the epicondylar axis reduced version measurements by 5.2°±2.6, compared to the posterior condylar axis. Significant inter-observer correlations were observed, but the agreement was higher for Murphy’s method (ICC:0.80; 95%CI: 0.72-0.86), compared to Reikeras (ICC:0.74; 95%CI: 0.63-0.82). While the Sugano and Lee methods (3D methods) showed strong correlations with both Murphy (ρ=0.937 and ρ=0.941, respectively) and Reikeras (ρ=0.936 and ρ=0.922, respectively), they demonstrated smaller discrepancies in absolute values with Reikeras (7.1°±3.6 and -3.0°±4.9 respectively) than with Murphy (9.3°±4.0 and 19.4°±4.1 respectively). Femoral version correlated positively with difference in measurements between Murphy/Reikeras (ρ=0.291), Lee/Murphy (ρ=0.402), Sugano/Lee (ρ=0.616), and negatively between Sugano/Murphy (ρ=-0.246) and Sugano/Rekeiras (ρ=-0.423). Discussion: Amongst the four observers, Murphy’s method demonstrated greatest agreement but illustrated greatest version compared to rest, which needs to be considered as neglecting these differences can lead to errors in surgical decision making and planning degree of correction. As higher femoral version correlates with increased disparities between certain measurement techniques, it is important to consider these differences in patients with instability presenting with persistent femoral anteversion, when considering derotational osteotomy.

Computed tomography‐based automated 3D measurement of femoral version: Validation against standard 2D measurements in symptomatic patients

ABSTRACTComputed tomography (CT) is considered the gold standard for femoral version measurement. However, recent data have shown magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as another modality to measure femoral version. This study aimed to correlate MRI and CT femoral version measurements in patients presenting with a femoroacetabular impingement (FAI)-related complaint. Patients (18–35 years old) who presented to the hip preservation clinic and radiology department with a suspected FAI diagnosis from 26 December 2018 to 4 March 2020 were included. All patients had a CT and MRI of the hip, with images including both hips and knees, as per our institution’s protocol for possible hip preservation surgery. Patients were excluded if they were missing views of the knees, or if they had a history or imaging appearance of any condition affecting femoral version at the femoral head (e.g. slipped capital femoral epiphysis). Femoral version was measured by three reviewers. Fifty-eight patients were included, and 36 (62%) were female. Femoral version averaged 6.1° ± 11.8° on CT and 6.5° ± 10.8° on MRI. A strong positive correlation was reported between the two imaging modalities (r: 0.81; P < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability among the three reviewers was excellent and statistically significant for measurements on both MRI [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.95; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.99; P < 0.001] and CT (ICC: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92, 0.99; P < 0.001). Our finding suggests that MRI is a sufficient method for measuring femoral version to determine disease etiology and treatment progression. To avoid exposing patients to ionizing radiation, physicians should not obtain CT scans to evaluate femoral version.

AimsThe frequency of severe femoral retroversion is unclear in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). This study aimed to investigate mean femoral version (FV), the frequency of absolute femoral retroversion, and the combination of decreased FV and acetabular retroversion (AR) in symptomatic patients with FAI subtypes.MethodsA retrospective institutional review board-approved observational study was performed with 333 symptomatic patients (384 hips) with hip pain due to FAI evaluated for hip preservation surgery. Overall, 142 patients (165 hips) had cam-type FAI, while 118 patients (137 hips) had mixed-type FAI. The allocation to each subgroup was based on reference values calculated on anteroposterior radiographs. CT/MRI-based measurement of FV (Murphy method) and AV were retrospectively compared among five FAI subgroups. Frequency of decreased FV < 10°, severely decreased FV < 5°, and absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°) was analyzed.ResultsA significantly (p < 0.001) lower mean FV was found in patients with cam-type FAI (15° (SD 10°)), and in patients with mixed-type FAI (17° (SD 11°)) compared to severe over-coverage (20° (SD 12°). Frequency of decreased FV < 10° was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in patients with cam-type FAI (28%, 46 hips) and in patients with over-coverage (29%, 11 hips) compared to severe over-coverage (12%, 5 hips). Absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°) was found in 13% (5 hips) of patients with over-coverage, 6% (10 hips) of patients with cam-type FAI, and 5% (7 hips) of patients with mixed-type FAI. The frequency of decreased FV< 10° combined with acetabular retroversion (AV < 10°) was 6% (8 hips) in patients with mixed-type FAI and 5% (20 hips) in all FAI patients. Of patients with over-coverage, 11% (4 hips) had decreased FV < 10° combined with acetabular retroversion (AV < 10°).ConclusionPatients with cam-type FAI had a considerable proportion (28%) of decreased FV < 10° and 6% had absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°), even more for patients with pincer-type FAI due to over-coverage (29% and 13%). This could be important for patients evaluated for open hip preservation surgery or hip arthroscopy, and each patient requires careful personalized evaluation.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):557–565.

BACKGROUND Although femoral retroversion has been linked to the onset of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), and may result from a rotation of the femoral epiphysis around the epiphyseal tubercle leading to femoral retroversion, femoral version has rarely been described in patients with SCFE. Furthermore, the prevalence of actual femoral retroversion and the effect of different measurement methods on femoral version angles has yet to be studied in SCFE. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES (1) Do femoral version and the prevalence of femoral retroversion differ between hips with SCFE and the asymptomatic contralateral side? (2) How do the mean femoral version angles and the prevalence of femoral retroversion change depending on the measurement method used? (3) What is the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of these measurement methods? METHODS For this retrospective, controlled, single-center study, we reviewed our institutional database for patients who were treated for unilateral SCFE and who had undergone a pelvic CT scan. During the period in question, the general indication for obtaining a CT scan was to define the surgical strategy based on the assessment of deformity severity in patients with newly diagnosed SCFE or with previous in situ fixation. After applying prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 79 patients. The mean age was 15 ± 4 years, 48% (38 of 79) of the patients were male, and 56% (44 of 79) were obese (defined as a BMI > 95th percentile (mean BMI 34 ± 9 kg/m). One radiology resident (6 years of experience) measured femoral version of the entire study group using five different methods. Femoral neck version was measured as the orientation of the femoral neck. Further measurement methods included the femoral head's center and differed regarding the level of landmarks for the proximal femoral reference axis. From proximal to distal, this included the most-proximal methods (Lee et al. and Reikeras et al.) and most-distal methods (Tomczak et al. and Murphy et al.). Most proximally (Lee et al. method), we used the most cephalic junction of the greater trochanter as the landmark and, most distally, we used the center base of the femoral neck superior to the lesser trochanter (Murphy et al.). The orientation of the distal femoral condyles served as the distal reference axis for all five measurement methods. All five methods were compared side-by-side (involved versus uninvolved hip), and comparisons among all five methods were performed using paired t-tests. The prevalence of femoral retroversion (< 0°) was compared using a chi-square test. A subset of patients was measured twice by the first observer and by a second orthopaedic resident (2 years of experience) to assess intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability; for this assessment, we used intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS The mean femoral neck version was lower in hips with SCFE than in the contralateral side (-2° ± 13° versus 7° ± 11°; p 0.80) for intraobserver reproducibility (reader 1, ICC 0.93 to 0.96) and interobserver reliability (ICC 0.95 to 0.98) for all five measurement methods. Analogously, we found excellent agreement (ICC > 0.80) for intraobserver reproducibility (reader 1, range 0.91 to 0.96) and interobserver reliability (range 0.89 to 0.98) for all five measurement methods in healthy contralateral hips. CONCLUSION We showed that femoral neck version is asymmetrically decreased in unilateral SCFE, and that differences increase when including the femoral head's center. Thus, to assess the full extent of an SCFE deformity, femoral version measurements should consider the position of the displaced epiphysis. The prevalence of femoral retroversion was high in patients with SCFE and increased when using proximal anatomic landmarks. Since the range of femoral version angles was wide, femoral version cannot be predicted in a given hip and must be assessed individually. Based on these findings, we believe it is worthwhile to add evaluation of femoral version to the diagnostic workup of children with SCFE. Doing so may better inform surgeons as they contemplate when to use isolated offset correction or to perform an additional femoral osteotomy for SCFE correction based on the severity of the slip and the rotational deformity. To facilitate communication among physicians and for the design of future studies, we recommend consistently reporting the applied measurement technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, prognostic study.

BackgroundTibial torsion and femoral version are two factors that impact lower extremity alignment and dynamic movement of the hip. The relationship between tibial torsion, femoral version and hip pathology has not been previously extensively studied.ObjectiveIn a patient population with unilateral and bilateral symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), we sought to analyze the relationship between known markers of hip pathology such as presence of a cam lesion (characterized by alpha angle), femoral version and lateral center edge angle (LCEA) to tibial torsion and femoral version measurements of the ipsilateral and contralateral limb. We hypothesized that there would be a significant relationship between tibial torsion, femoral version and hip pathology.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients who presented to the senior author’s clinic for evaluation of hip pain. CT measurements with axial cuts of bilateral hips, knees and ankles were obtained on 189 patients. Tibial Torsion and Femoral Version measurements for both the injured and uninjured hip were measured. All other measurements were obtained using a third-party imaging software. Pearson correlation coefficients and paired t-tests were used for analysis.ResultsFemoral version was 5.2 degrees more retroverted for individuals with cam-type FAI (p = 0.0003) and 4.3 degrees more anteverted for individuals with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH, as defined by an LCEA <25o) (p = 0.0357.) Tibial torsion was not significantly different for individuals with cam-type FAI (p =.6561) or DDH (p =.2842.) There was a 0.58043 correlation between tibial torsion of the injured leg and tibial torsion of the contralateral leg (p = 0.00001.)ConclusionsIn our study population of patients with FAI, the degree of tibial torsion was not related to hip pathology. Femoral anteversion was associated with DDH and femoral retroversion with cam-type FAI. There is a significant positive correlation between tibial torsion of the injured and contralateral leg but no correlation of tibial torsion to ipsilateral femoral version or hip pathology.

ABSTRACTFrequencies of combined abnormalities of femoral version (FV) and acetabular version (AV) and of abnormalities of the McKibbin index are unknown. To investigate the prevalence of combined abnormalities of FV and AV and of abnormalities of the McKibbin index in symptomatic patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), a retrospective, Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved study of 333 symptomatic patients (384 hips) that were presented with hip pain and FAI was performed. The computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging based measurement of central AV, cranial AV and FV was compared among five subgroups with distinguished FAI subgroups and patients that underwent a hip preservation surgery. The allocation to each subgroup was based on AP radiographs. Normal AV and FV were 10–25°. The McKibbin index is the sum of central AV and FV. Of patients that underwent a hip preservation surgery, 73% had a normal McKibbin index (20–50°) but 27% had an abnormal McKibbin index. Of all patients, 72% had a normal McKibbin index, but 28% had abnormal McKibbin index. The prevalence of combined abnormalities of FV and AV varied among subgroups: a higher prevalence of decreased central AV combined with decreased FV of patients with acetabular-retroversion group (12%) and overcoverage (11%) was found compared with mixed-type FAI (5%). Normal AV combined with normal FV was present in 41% of patients with cam-type FAI and in 34% of patients with overcoverage. Patients that underwent a hip preservation surgery had normal mean FV (17 ± 11°), central AV (19 ± 7°), cranial AV (16 ± 10°) and McKibbin index (36 ± 14°). Frequency of combined abnormalities of AV and FV differs between subgroups of FAI patients. Aggravated and compensated McKibbin index was prevalent in FAI patients. This has implications for open hip preservation surgery (surgical hip dislocation or femoral derotation osteotomy) or hip arthroscopy or non-operative treatment.

Femoral version: Comparison among advanced imaging methods.

Femoral version measurement techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have been developed as an alternative to the high levels of ionizing radiation associated with computed tomography (CT)-based methods. Previous studies have not evaluated the reliability, repeatability, and accuracy of MRI-based femoral version measurements in an adolescent population. Subjects who underwent MRI and CT studies for clinical suspicion of hip pain secondary to hip dysplasia or femoroacetabular impingement between 2011 and 2013 were identified. Rapid sequence femoral version images were obtained from MRI Hip dGEMRIC and/or postarthrogram studies. Femoral version images were also obtained from bilateral CT lower extremity, without contrast, studies. Measurements were made by 1 fellowship-trained, pediatric hip preservation attending surgeon, 2 pediatric orthopaedic surgical fellows, and 1 fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist on 2 separate occasions. Linear mixed models were used to estimate the reliability and repeatability associated with CT-based and MRI-based measurements (intraclass correlation coefficients) and to estimate the agreement (CT-MRI) between the 2 techniques. The mean age of 36 subjects was 15.4 years (±4.1 y). Interrater reliability was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95) for the CT technique compared with 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86-0.94) for the rapid sequence MRI technique. Intrarater reliability for the CT technique was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) compared with 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-0.97) for the MRI technique. The agreement between the MRI-based and CT-based techniques (bias: 1.9 degrees, limits of agreement: -11.3 to 14.9 degrees) was similar to the agreement between consecutive MRI measurements (bias: 0.4 degrees, limits of agreement: -7.8 to 8.6 degrees) as well as consecutive CT measurements (bias: 0.5 degrees, limits of agreement: -8.8 to 9.9 degrees). The interrater and intrarater reliability and repeatability estimates (intraclass correlation coefficient values) associated with both techniques was excellent (>0.90). Acquirement of axial images at the pelvis and knee during MRI for investigation of adolescents with hip pain allows for reliable measurement of femoral version. Level II-diagnostic study.

Cam Morphology Is Associated With Increased Femoral Version: Findings From a Collection of 1,321 Cadaveric Femurs

Objectives:Cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a three-dimensional (3D) deformity that is still difficult to assess using traditional two-dimensional (2D) radiographic views. While measurements of alpha angle and head-neck offset are used to estimate the likelihood of actual impingement, these 2D measurements do not account for z-axis variations in femoral version (FV) and neck-shaft angle (NSA). The purpose of this qualitative proof-of-concept study was to evaluate the potential variation in alpha angle and neck-shaft offset measurements with incremental changes in NSA and FV by simulating traditional radiographic views with software-generated Digitally-Reconstructed Radiographs (DRRs). We hypothesize that incremental changes in hip morphology will produce qualitative changes in alpha angle and neck-shaft offset.Methods:3D-CT reconstruction images were obtained from one subject with symptomatic cam-type FAI. The 3D reconstruction was cleaned to include only the femoral head, neck and subtrochanteric region along with the ipsilateral hemipelvis. Using 3D medical image processing software (Mimics; Materialise, Inc.; Belgium), the pre-processed 3D model was manipulated in a standardized manner to simulate 5-degree incremental variations in FV and NSA (-15 degrees to +15 degrees for FV; -15 degrees to +10 degrees for NSA). Negative FV reflected external rotation of the femoral head-neck unit, whereas negative NSA reflected abduction of the femoral head-neck unit. Each modified 3D model was then used to generate DRRs corresponding to traditional 2D radiographic views used for assessment of cam-FAI (Anteroposterior [AP], False Profile [FP]), Cross Table Lateral [CTL], Frog Leg Lateral [FLL], 45- and 90-degree Dunn [45D and 90D, respectively]. Alpha angle and head-neck offset were measured on each radiographic view corresponding to each incremental change in FV and NSA. All measurements utilized the perfect circle technique and were made by two independent observers for assessment of inter-observer reliability. Two-way random effects ANOVA was used for statistical assessment of inter-observer reliability and reported as intra-class correlation coefficients (κ). Comparisons between groups were performed using two-tailed paired t-tests assuming unequal variance. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.Results:Inter-observer reliability (κ) for head-neck offset and alpha angles were 0.46 (fair) and 0.88 (excellent), respectively. Variations in head-neck offset and alpha angle with incremental variations in FV and NSA are summarized in Figure 1. There were statistically significant changes in mean alpha angles when the NSA was adjusted from Neutral to -5 degrees (p=0.01) and from -5 degrees to -10 degrees (p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in alpha angles or head-neck offsets between each incremental change in FV (p<0.05). Alpha angle measurements were significantly more variable than head-neck offset measurements for all variations in FV (p<0.001) and NSA (p=0.02) (Figure 2).Conclusion:Two-dimensional evaluation of three-dimensional Cam morphology (alpha angle and head-neck offset) was found to be significantly affected by alterations in femoral version and head-neck offset. Head-neck offset measurements were significantly less variable than alpha angle measurements across all FVs and NSAs within each radiographic view. Future work should be done to develop standardized procedures for routine 3D radiographic assessment of cam-type FAI.Figure 1.Figure 2.

To validate femoral version measurements made from biplanar radiography (BR), three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions (EOS imaging, France) were made in differing rotational positions against the gold standard of computed tomography (CT). Two cadaveric femurs were scanned with CT and BR in five different femoral versions creating ten total phantoms. The native version was modified by rotating through a mid-diaphyseal hinge twice into increasing anteversion and twice into increased retroversion. For each biplanar scan, the phantom itself was rotated -10, -5, 0, +5 and +10°. Three-dimensional CT reconstructions were designated the true value for femoral version. Two independent observers measured the femoral version on CT axial slices and BR 3D reconstructions twice. The mean error (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval), inter- and intraobserver reliability, and the error compared to the true version were determined for both imaging techniques. Interobserver intraclass correlation for CT axial images ranged from 0.981 to 0.991, and the intraobserver intraclass correlation ranged from 0.994 to 0.996. For the BR 3D reconstructions these values ranged from 0.983 to 0.998 and 0.982 to 0.998, respectively. For the CT measurements the upper bound of error from the true value was 5.4-7.5°, whereas for BR 3D reconstructions it was 4.0-10.1°. There was no statistical difference in the mean error from the true values for any of the measurements done with axial CT or BR 3D reconstructions. BR 3D reconstructions accurately and reliably provide clinical data on femoral version compared to CT even with rotation of the patient of up to 10° from neutral.

BackgroundTo determine the interobserver agreement on femoral version measurements between an orthopedic attending, orthopedic senior and junior residents, and an attending radiologist.Materials and methodsPostoperative computed tomography (CT) scanograms of 267 patients who underwent femoral intramedullary (IM) nailing with corresponding radiology attending reads for femoral version were collected and de-identified. Femoral version measurements performed by a trauma fellowship-trained attending orthopedic surgeon (ORTHO), a senior orthopedic resident (PGY4), a junior orthopedic resident (PGY1), and a musculoskeletal fellowship-trained attending radiologist (RADS) were compared via Pearson’s interclass correlation coefficient to assess interobserver level of agreement.ResultsVersion measurements provided by the two attending physicians exhibited the highest level of agreement (r = 0.661, p < 0.01). The orthopedic attending and the senior resident had the next highest level of agreement (r = 0.543, p < 0.01). The first-year orthopedic resident had the weakest agreement across the board: with the orthopedic attending, the radiology attending, and the senior resident.ConclusionRegardless of specialty, experience and higher levels of training produce stronger agreement when measuring femoral version. Residents in training, especially those who are junior, produce weak agreement when compared to their senior colleagues.Level of evidenceLevel III, diagnostic study.