Tehran University of Medical Sciences Journal of Orthopedic and Spine Trauma 2538-2330 12 3 2026 08 26 159 62 Saeed Mirmoosavi Orthopedic Minimally Invasive Research Center, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Mohammad Soleimani Orthopedic Minimally Invasive Research Center, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Babak Siavashi Orthopedic Minimally Invasive Research Center, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Yousef Fallah Orthopedic Minimally Invasive Research Center, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Mohammad Ashouri Orthopedic Minimally Invasive Research Center, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Seyyed Hossein Shafiei Orthopedic Minimally Invasive Research Center, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Mohammadreza Golbakhsh Orthopedic Minimally Invasive Research Center, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2025 11 07 2026 06 14 Background: As previously demonstrated, acetabular fracture type can vary depending on acetabular version. However, there is limited research on the prevalence of acetabular retroversion (AR) in patients with acetabular fracture; hence, this study aims to investigate the association between AR and acetabular fracture. Methods: In this case-control study, 197 male and female patients were selected (103 patients with acetabular fracture and 94 patients without acetabular fracture). Data were extracted by interview and review of the medical records. The acetabular version was measured by computed tomography (CT) scan using the central axial cut. The data were analyzed and the results were reported to be significant at P < 0.05. Results: The mean central version angle was lower in the group with acetabular fracture compared to the other group (11.64° ± 9.19° vs. 16.27° ± 6.37°; P < 0.001). There were more retroverted acetabula in the group with fractures than in the group with intact acetabulum (38% vs. 20%; P = 0.005). It was found that acetabular version increased with age, and there was a correlation between age and acetabular version (r = 0.148; P = 0.051). Furthermore, retroverted acetabula were more prone to posterior-type acetabular fractures; 32% of fractures in retroverted acetabula were posterior type, while only 18% of fractures in anteverted acetabulum were posterior type (P = 0.021). Conclusion: This study showed an association between acetabular fracture and AR. The prevalence of retroverted acetabula in patients with acetabular fracture was greater than in traumatic patients with intact acetabula. Posterior type fractures were more prevalent in patients with retroverted acetabula than in those with anteverted ones. https://jost.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jost/article/view/733 https://jost.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jost/article/download/733/482