Correct quantification of femoral torsion is crucial to diagnose torsional deformities, make an indication for surgical treatment, or plan the amount of correction. However, no clear evaluation of ...different femoral torsion measurement methods for hips with excessive torsion has been performed to date.
(1) How does CT-based measurement of femoral torsion differ among five commonly used measurement methods? (2) Do differences in femoral torsion among measurement methods increase in hips with excessive femoral torsion? (3) What is the reliability and reproducibility of each of the five torsion measurement methods?
Between March and August 2016, we saw 86 new patients (95 hips) with hip pain and physical findings suggestive for femoroacetabular impingement at our outpatient tertiary clinic. Of those, 56 patients (62 hips) had a pelvic CT scan including the distal femur for measurement of femoral torsion. We excluded seven patients (seven hips) with previous hip surgery, two patients (two hips) with sequelae of Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, and one patient (one hip) with a posttraumatic deformity. This resulted in 46 patients (52 hips) in the final study group with a mean age of 28 ± 9 years (range, 17-51 years) and 27 female patients (59%). Torsion was compared among five commonly used assessment measures, those of Lee et al., Reikerås et al., Jarrett et al., Tomczak et al., and Murphy et al. They differed regarding the level of the anatomic landmark for the proximal femoral neck axis; the method of Lee had the most proximal definition followed by the methods of Reikerås, Jarrett, and Tomczak at the base of the femoral neck and the method of Murphy with the most distal definition at the level of the lesser trochanter. The definition of the femoral head center and of the distal reference was consistent for all five measurement methods. We used the method described by Murphy et al. as our baseline measurement method for femoral torsion because it reportedly most closely reflects true anatomic femoral torsion. With this method we found a mean femoral torsion of 28 ± 13°. Mean values of femoral torsion were compared among the five methods using multivariate analysis of variance. All differences between two of the measurement methods were plotted over the entire range of femoral torsion to evaluate a possible increase in hips with excessive femoral torsion. All measurements were performed by two blinded orthopaedic residents (FS, TDL) at two different occasions to measure intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
We found increasing values for femoral torsion using measurement methods with a more distal definition of the proximal femoral neck axis: Lee et al. (most proximal definition: 11° ± 11°), Reikerås et al. (15° ± 11°), Jarrett et al. (19° ± 11°), Tomczak et al. (25° ± 12°), and Murphy et al. (most distal definition: 28° ± 13°). The most pronounced difference was found for the comparison between the methods of Lee et al. and Murphy et al. with a mean difference of 17° ± 5° (95% confidence interval, 16°-19°; p < 0.001). For six of 10 possible pairwise comparisons, the difference between two methods increased with increasing femoral torsion and decreased with decreasing femoral torsion. We observed a fair-to-strong linear correlation (R range, 0.306-0.622; all p values < 0.05) for any method compared with the Murphy method and for the Reikerås and Jarrett methods when compared with the Tomczak method. For example, a hip with 10° of femoral antetorsion according Murphy had a torsion of 1° according to Reikerås, which corresponds to a difference of 9°. This difference increased to 20° in hips with excessive torsion; for example, a hip with 60° of torsion according to Murphy had 40° of torsion according to Reikerås. All five methods for measuring femoral torsion showed excellent agreement for both intraobserver reproducibility (ICC, 0.905-0.973) and interobserver reliability (ICC, 0.938-0.969).
Because the quantification of femoral torsion in hips with excessive femoral torsion differs considerably among measurement methods, it is crucial to state the applied methods when reporting femoral torsion and to be consistent regarding the used measurement method. These differences have to be considered for surgical decision-making and planning the degree of correction. Neglecting the differences among measurement methods to quantify femoral torsion can potentially lead to misdiagnosis and surgical planning errors.
Level IV, diagnostic study.
Background:
Variations in femoral and acetabular version are becoming increasingly recognized as contributing factors to the development of hip pain in patients with femoroacetabular impingement ...(FAI) and hip dysplasia. It is still unknown what the true prevalence of these rotational abnormalities is in this patient population.
Purpose:
To determine (1) the prevalence of femoral version abnormalities in symptomatic hips with FAI and hip dysplasia, (2) the prevalence of combined abnormalities of femoral and acetabular version in these patients, and (3) which specific hip morphologies are associated with abnormalities of femoral version.
Study Design:
Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
A total of 462 symptomatic patients (538 hips) were included who had hip pain attributed to FAI or hip dysplasia and who presented to our tertiary referral center for hip preservation surgery between 2011 and 2015. We retrospectively examined femoral and acetabular version among 11 subgroups with predefined hip morphologies and compared findings with a control group. The allocation to each subgroup was based on morphologic reference values for femoral head coverage, lateral center edge angle, alpha angle, and neck-shaft angle calculated on plain radiographs.
Results:
Of the 538 hips included, 52% were found to have abnormal femoral version; severe abnormalities were found in 17%. Severely decreased femoral version (<0°) was found in 5%; moderately decreased femoral version (0°-10°), in 17%; moderately increased femoral version (26°-35°), in 18%; and severely increased femoral version (>35°), in 12%. The most frequent abnormal combination was increased femoral version combined with normal acetabular version (22%). We found significantly lower mean femoral version for the cam-type FAI group (15°) and significantly higher mean femoral version for the Perthes hips (32°; ie, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease) as compared with the control group (22°). The mean femoral version of the study group was 19°; for male patients, 15°; and for female patients, 22°.
Conclusion:
Abnormalities in femoral version are highly prevalent in patients with hip pain who are eligible for hip preservation surgery, and severe abnormalities are prevalent in 1 of 6 patients (17%). Based on these results, the evaluation of young patients with hip pain should always include an assessment of femoral version and acetabular version to best decide what treatment approach should be undertaken to optimize outcomes.
Background:
It remains unclear whether decreased femoral version (FV) causes anterior intra- or extra-articular femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Therefore, we evaluated symptomatic hips with ...decreased FV, with and without cam and pincer FAI, by using computed tomography (CT)–based virtual 3-dimensional (3D) impingement simulation and compared this group with patients with normal FV and with asymptomatic hips.
Purpose:
To investigate (1) the osseous range of motion, (2) the osseous femoral and acetabular impingement zones, and (3) whether hip impingement is extra- or intra-articular in symptomatic hips with FAI.
Study Design:
Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
An institutional review board–approved, retrospective comparative analysis was performed on a total of 84 hips in 68 participants. Of these, 37 hips in 24 symptomatic patients with FAI had decreased FV. These hips were compared with 21 hips of 18 symptomatic patients with anterior FAI with normal FV (10°-25°) and 26 asymptomatic hips with no FAI and normal FV. All patients with FAI were symptomatic and had anterior hip pain and a positive anterior impingement test. They underwent pelvic CT scans to measure FV. Decreased FV was defined as FV less than 5°. The 37 hips with decreased FV presented both with and without cam and pincer FAI. All 84 hips were evaluated by use of CT-based 3D models and a validated 3D range of motion and impingement simulation. Asymptomatic hips were contralateral normal hips imaged in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.
Results:
Hips with FAI combined with decreased FV had a significantly (P < .001) lower mean flexion (114°± 8° vs 125°± 13°) and internal rotation (IR) at 90° of flexion (18°± 6° vs 32°± 9°, P < .001) compared with the asymptomatic control group. Symptomatic patients with FAI and normal FV had flexion of 120°± 16° and IR at 90° of flexion of 23°± 15°. In a subgroup analysis, we found a significantly (P < .001) lower IR in 90° of flexion in hips with FV less than 5° combined with mixed-type FAI compared with hips with FV less than 5° without a cam- or pincer-type deformity. The maximal acetabular impingement zone for hips with decreased FV was located at the 2-o’clock position and ranged from 1 to 3 o’clock. In hips with decreased FV, most of the impingement locations were intra-articular but 32% of hips had combined intra- and extra-articular FAI in internal rotation in 90° of flexion. During the flexion-adduction-IR test performed in 10° and 20° of adduction, extra-articular subspine FAI had significantly (P < .001) higher prevalence (68% and 84%) in hips with decreased FV compared with normal hips.
Conclusion:
Hips with FAI and decreased FV had less flexion and internal rotation in 90° of flexion compared with the asymptomatic control group. The majority of hip impingement due to low FV was intra-articular, but one-third of samples had combined intra- and extra-articular subspine FAI. Anterior extra- and intra-articular hip impingement can be present in patients who have FAI with decreased FV. This could be important for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.
Arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has promising short-term to mid-term results. In addition to treating acute pain or impaired function, the goal of ...hip-preserving surgery is to achieve a lasting improvement of hip function and to prevent the development of osteoarthritis. Long-term results are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical treatment and to further improve results by identifying factors associated with conversion to THA.
(1) How do the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel scores change from before surgery to follow-up of at least 10 years in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAI? (2) What is the cumulative 10-year survival rate of hips with the endpoints of conversion to THA or a Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score less than 15? (3) Which factors are associated with conversion to THA?
Between 2003 and 2008, we treated 63 patients (65 hips) for symptomatic FAI with hip arthroscopy at our institution. During that period, the indications for using arthroscopy were correction of anterior cam morphology and anterolateral rim trimming with debridement or reattachment of the labrum. We excluded patients who were younger than 16 years and those who had previous trauma or surgery of the hip. Based on that, 60 patients (62 hips) were eligible. A further 17% (10 of 60) of patients were excluded because the treatment was purely symptomatic without treatment of cam- and/or pincer-type morphology. Of the 50 patients (52 hips) included in the study, 2% (1) of patients were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 10 years, leaving 49 patients (51 hips) for analysis. The median (range) follow-up was 11 years (10 to 17). The median age at surgery was 33 years (16 to 63). Ninety percent (45 of 50) of patients were women. Of the 52 hips, 75% (39 of 52) underwent cam resection (femoral offset correction), 8% (4 of 52) underwent acetabular rim trimming, and 17% (9 of 52) had both procedures. Additionally, in 35% (18 of 52) of hips the labrum was debrided, in 31% (16 of 52) it was resected, and in 10% (5 of 52) of hips the labrum was reattached. The primary clinical outcome measurements were conversion to THA and the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score. Kaplan-Meier survivorship and Cox regression analyses were performed with endpoints being conversion to THA or Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score less than 15 points.
The clinical result at 10 years of follow-up was good. The median improvement of the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score was 3 points (interquartile range 2 to 4), to a median score at last follow-up of 17 points (range 10 to 18). The cumulative 10-year survival rate was 92% (95% CI 85% to 99%) with the endpoints of conversion to THA or Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score less than 15. Factors associated with conversion to THA were each year of advancing age at the time of surgery (hazard ratio 1.1 95% CI 1.0 to 1.3; p = 0.01) and preoperative Tönnis Grade 1 compared with Tönnis Grade 0 (no sign of arthritis; HR 17 95% CI 1.8 to 166; p = 0.01).
In this series, more than 90% of patients retained their native hips and reported good patient-reported outcome scores at least 10 years after arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic FAI. Younger patients fared better in this series, as did hips without signs of osteoarthritis. Future studies with prospective comparisons of treatment groups are needed to determine how best to treat complex impingement morphologies.
Level IV, therapeutic study.
Objective
To compare image quality and diagnostic performance of preoperative direct hip magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) performed with gadolinium contrast agent and saline solution.
Methods
...IRB-approved retrospective study of 140 age and sex-matched symptomatic patients with femoroacetabular impingement, who either underwent intra-articular injection of 15–20 mL gadopentetate dimeglumine (GBCA), 2.0 mmol/L (“GBCA-MRA” group,
n
= 70), or 0.9% saline solution (“Saline-MRA” group,
n
= 70) for preoperative hip MRA and subsequent hip arthroscopy. 1.5 T hip MRA was performed including leg traction. Two readers assessed image quality using a 5-point Likert scale (1–5, excellent-poor), labrum and femoroacetabular cartilage lesions. Arthroscopic diagnosis was used to calculate diagnostic accuracy which was compared between groups with Fisher’s exact tests. Image quality was compared with the Mann–Whitney
U
tests.
Results
Mean age was 33 years ± 9, 21% female patients. Image quality was excellent (GBCA-MRA mean range, 1.1–1.3 vs 1.1–1.2 points for Saline-MRA) and not different between groups (all
p
> 0.05) except for image contrast which was lower for Saline-MRA group (GBCA-MRA 1.1 ± 0.4 vs Saline-MRA 1.8 ± 0.5;
p
< 0.001). Accuracy was high for both groups for reader 1/reader 2 for labrum (GBCA-MRA 94%/ 96% versus Saline-MRA 96%/93%;
p
> 0.999/
p
= 0.904) and acetabular (GBCA-MRA 86%/ 83% versus Saline-MRA 89%/87%;
p
= 0.902/
p
= 0.901) and femoral cartilage lesions (GBCA-MRA 97%/ 99% versus Saline-MRA 97%/97%; both
p
> 0.999).
Conclusion
Diagnostic accuracy and image quality of Saline-MRA and GBCA-MRA is high in assessing chondrolabral lesions underlining the potential role of non-gadolinium-based hip MRA.
Key Points
•
Image quality of Saline-MRA and GBCA-MRA was excellent for labrum, acetabular and femoral cartilage, ligamentum teres, and the capsule (all p
>
0.18)
.
•
The overall image contrast was lower for Saline-MRA (Saline-MRA 1.8
±
0.5 vs. GBCA-MRA 1.1
±
0.4; p
<
0.001)
.
•
Diagnostic accuracy was high for Saline-MRA and GBCA-MRA for labrum (96% vs. 94%; p
>
0.999), acetabular cartilage damage (89% vs. 86%; p
=
0.902), femoral cartilage damage (97% vs. 97%; p
>
0.999), and extensive cartilage damage (97% vs. 93%; p
=
0.904)
.
Background:
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a complex 3-dimensional (3D) hip abnormality that can cause hip pain and osteoarthritis in young and active patients of childbearing age. Imaging is ...static and based on 2-dimensional radiographs or computed tomography (CT) scans. Recently, CT-based 3D impingement simulation was introduced for patient-specific assessments of hip deformities, whereas magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers a radiation-free alternative for surgical planning before hip arthroscopic surgery.
Purpose:
To (1) investigate the difference between 3D models of the hip, (2) correlate the location of hip impingement and range of motion (ROM), and (3) correlate diagnostic parameters while comparing CT- and MRI-based osseous 3D models of the hip in symptomatic patients with FAI.
Study Design:
Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.
Methods:
The authors performed an institutional review board–approved comparative and retrospective study of 31 hips in 26 symptomatic patients with FAI. We compared CT- and MRI-based osseous 3D models of the hip in the same patients. 3D CT scans (slice thickness, 1 mm) of the entire pelvis and the distal femoral condyles were obtained. Preoperative MRI of the hip was performed including an axial-oblique T1 VIBE sequence (slice thickness, 1 mm) and 2 axial anisotropic (1.2 × 1.2 × 1 mm) T1 VIBE Dixon sequences of the entire pelvis and the distal femoral condyles. Threshold-based semiautomatic reconstruction of 3D models was performed using commercial software. CT- and MRI-based 3D models were compared with specifically developed software.
Results:
(1) The difference between MRI- and CT-based 3D models was less than 1 mm for the proximal femur and the acetabulum (median surface distance, 0.4 ± 0.1 mm and 0.4 ± 0.2 mm, respectively). (2) The correlation for ROM values was excellent (r = 0.99, P < .001) between CT and MRI. The mean absolute difference for flexion and extension was 1.9°± 1.5° and 2.6°± 1.9°, respectively. The location of impingement did not differ between CT- and MRI-based 3D ROM analysis in all 12 of 12 acetabular and 11 of 12 femoral clock-face positions. (3) The correlation for 6 diagnostic parameters was excellent (r = 0.98, P < .001) between CT and MRI. The mean absolute difference for inclination and anteversion was 2.0°± 1.8° and 1.0°± 0.8°, respectively.
Conclusion:
Patient-specific and radiation-free MRI-based dynamic 3D simulation of hip impingement and ROM can replace CT-based 3D simulation for patients with FAI of childbearing age. On the basis of these excellent results, we intend to change our clinical practice, and we will use MRI-based 3D models for future clinical practice instead of CT-based 3D models. This allows radiation-free and patient-specific preoperative 3D impingement simulation for surgical planning and simulation of open hip preservation surgery and hip arthroscopic surgery.
The time-consuming and user-dependent postprocessing of biochemical cartilage MRI has limited the use of delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC). An automated analysis of biochemical ...three-dimensional (3-D) images could deliver a more time-efficient and objective evaluation of cartilage composition, and provide comprehensive information about cartilage thickness, surface area, and volume compared with manual two-dimensional (2-D) analysis.
(1) How does the 3-D analysis of cartilage thickness and dGEMRIC index using both a manual and a new automated method compare with the manual 2-D analysis (gold standard)? (2) How does the manual 3-D analysis of regional patterns of dGEMRIC index, cartilage thickness, surface area and volume compare with a new automatic method? (3) What is the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of software-assisted manual 3-D and automated 3-D analysis of dGEMRIC indices, thickness, surface, and volume for two readers on two time points?
In this IRB-approved, retrospective, diagnostic study, we identified the first 25 symptomatic hips (23 patients) who underwent a contrast-enhanced MRI at 3T including a 3-D dGEMRIC sequence for intraarticular pathology assessment due to structural hip deformities. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43%) were male, 16 (64%) hips had a cam deformity and 16 (64%) hips had either a pincer deformity or acetabular dysplasia. The development of an automated deep-learning-based approach for 3-D segmentation of hip cartilage models was based on two steps: First, one reader (FS) provided a manual 3-D segmentation of hip cartilage, which served as training data for the neural network and was used as input data for the manual 3-D analysis. Next, we developed the deep convolutional neural network to obtain an automated 3-D cartilage segmentation that we used as input data for the automated 3-D analysis. For actual analysis of the manually and automatically generated 3-D cartilage models, a dedicated software was developed. Manual 2-D analysis of dGEMRIC indices and cartilage thickness was performed at each "full-hour" position on radial images and served as the gold standard for comparison with the corresponding measurements of the manual and the automated 3-D analysis. We measured dGEMRIC index, cartilage thickness, surface area, and volume for each of the four joint quadrants and compared the manual and the automated 3-D analyses using mean differences. Agreement between the techniques was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The overlap between 3-D cartilage volumes was assessed using dice coefficients and means of all distances between surface points of the models were calculated as average surface distance. The interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the software-assisted manual 3-D and the automated 3-D analysis of dGEMRIC indices, thickness, surface and volume was assessed for two readers on two different time points using ICCs.
Comparable mean overall difference and almost-perfect agreement in dGEMRIC indices was found between the manual 3-D analysis (8 ± 44 ms, p = 0.005; ICC = 0.980), the automated 3-D analysis (7 ± 43 ms, p = 0.015; ICC = 0.982), and the manual 2-D analysis.Agreement for measuring overall cartilage thickness was almost perfect for both 3-D methods (ICC = 0.855 and 0.881) versus the manual 2-D analysis. A mean difference of -0.2 ± 0.5 mm (p < 0.001) was observed for overall cartilage thickness between the automated 3-D analysis and the manual 2-D analysis; no such difference was observed between the manual 3-D and the manual 2-D analysis.Regional patterns were comparable for both 3-D methods. The highest dGEMRIC indices were found posterosuperiorly (manual: 602 ± 158 ms; p = 0.013, automated: 602 ± 158 ms; p = 0.012). The thickest cartilage was found anteroinferiorly (manual: 5.3 ± 0.8 mm, p < 0.001; automated: 4.3 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.001). The smallest surface area was found anteroinferiorly (manual: 134 ± 60 mm; p < 0.001, automated: 155 ± 60 mm; p < 0.001). The largest volume was found anterosuperiorly (manual: 2343 ± 492 mm; p < 0.001, automated: 2294 ± 467 mm; p < 0.001). Mean average surface distance was 0.26 ± 0.13 mm and mean Dice coefficient was 86% ± 3%. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability was near perfect for overall analysis of dGEMRIC indices, thickness, surface area, and volume (ICC range, 0.962-1).
The presented deep learning approach for a fully automatic segmentation of hip cartilage enables an accurate, reliable and reproducible analysis of dGEMRIC indices, thickness, surface area, and volume. This time-efficient and objective analysis of biochemical cartilage composition and morphology yields the potential to improve patient selection in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) surgery and to aid surgeons with planning of acetabuloplasty and periacetabular osteotomies in pincer FAI and hip dysplasia. In addition, this validation paves way to the large-scale use of this method for prospective trials which longitudinally monitor the effect of reconstructive hip surgery and the natural course of osteoarthritis.
Level III, diagnostic study.
Femoral version deformities have recently been identified as a major contributor to femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). An in-depth understanding of the specific labral damage patterns caused by ...femoral version deformities may help to understand the underlying pathomorphologies in symptomatic patients and select the appropriate surgical treatment.
We asked: (1) Is there a correlation between femoral version and the mean cross-sectional area of the acetabular labrum? (2) Is there a difference in the location of lesions of the acetabular labrum between hips with increased femoral version and hips with decreased femoral version? (3) Is there a difference in the pattern of lesions of the acetabular labrum between hips with increased femoral version and hips with decreased femoral version?
This was a retrospective, comparative study. Between November 2009 and September 2016, we evaluated 640 hips with FAI. We considered patients with complete diagnostic imaging including magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) of the affected hip with radial slices of the proximal femur and axial imaging of the distal femoral condyles (allowing for calculation of femoral version) as eligible. Based on that, 97% (620 of 640 hips) were eligible; a further 77% (491 of 640 hips) were excluded because they had either normal femoral version (384 hips), incomplete imaging (20 hips), a lateral center-edge angle < 22° (43 hips) or > 39° (16 hips), age > 50 years (8 hips), or a history of pediatric hip disease (20 hips), leaving 20% (129 of 640 hips) of patients with a mean age of 27 ± 9 years for analysis, and 61% (79 of 129 hips) were female. Patients were assigned to either the increased (> 30°) or decreased (< 5°) femoral version group. The labral cross-sectional area was measured on radial MR images in all patients. The location-dependent labral cross-sectional area, presence of labral tears, and labral tear patterns were assessed using the acetabular clockface system and compared among groups.
In hips with increased femoral version, the labrum was normal in size (21 ± 6 mm2 95% confidence interval 20 to 23 mm2), whereas hips with decreased femoral version showed labral hypotrophy (14 ± 4 mm2 95% CI 13 to 15 mm2; p < 0.01). In hips with increased femoral version, labral tears were located more anteriorly (median 1:30 versus 12:00; p < 0.01). Hips with increased femoral version exhibited damage of the anterior labrum with more intrasubstance tears anterosuperiorly (17% 222 of 1322 versus 9% 93 of 1084; p < 0.01) and partial tears anteroinferiorly (22% 36 of 165 versus 6% 8 of 126; p < 0.01). Hips with decreased femoral version showed superior labral damage consisting primarily of partial labral tears.
In the evaluation of patients with FAI, the term "labral tear" is not accurate enough to describe labral pathology. Based on high-quality radial MR images, surgeons should always evaluate the combination of labral tear location and labral tear pattern, because these may provide insight into associated femoral version abnormalities, which can inform appropriate surgical treatment. Future studies should examine symptomatic patients with normal femoral version, as well as an asymptomatic control group, to describe the effect of femoral version on labral morphology across the entire spectrum of pathomorphologies.
Level III, prognostic study.
Background:
Symptomatic patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) have limitations in daily activities and sports and report the exacerbation of hip pain in deep flexion. Yet, the exact ...impingement location in deep flexion and the effect of femoral version (FV) are unclear.
Purpose:
To investigate the acetabular and femoral locations of intra- or extra-articular hip impingement in flexion in patients with FAI with and without femoral retroversion.
Study Design:
Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
An institutional review board–approved retrospective study involving 84 hips (68 participants) was performed. Of these, symptomatic patients (37 hips) with anterior FAI and femoral retroversion (FV <5°) were compared with symptomatic patients (21 hips) with anterior FAI (normal FV) and with a control group (26 asymptomatic hips without FAI and normal FV). All patients were symptomatic, had anterior hip pain, and had positive anterior impingement test findings. Most of the patients had hip/groin pain in maximal flexion or deep flexion or during sports. All 84 hips underwent pelvic computed tomography (CT) to measure FV as well as validated dynamic impingement simulation with patient-specific CT-based 3-dimensional models using the equidistant method.
Results:
In maximal hip flexion, femoral impingement was located anterior-inferior at 4 o’clock (57%) and 5 o’clock (32%) in patients with femoral retroversion and mostly at 5 o’clock in patients without femoral retroversion (69%) and in asymptomatic controls (76%). Acetabular intra-articular impingement was located anterior-superior (2 o’clock) in all 3 groups. In 125° of flexion, patients with femoral retroversion had a significantly (P < .001) higher prevalence of anterior extra-articular subspine impingement (54%) and anterior intra-articular impingement (89%) compared with the control group (29% and 62%, respectively).
Conclusion:
Knowing the exact location of hip impingement in deep flexion has implications for surgical treatment, sports, and physical therapy and confirms previous recommendations: Deep flexion (eg, during squats/lunges) should be avoided in patients with FAI and even more in patients with femoral retroversion. Patients with femoral retroversion may benefit and have less pain when avoiding deep flexion. For these patients, the femoral location of the impingement conflict in flexion was different (anterior-inferior) and distal to the cam deformity compared with the location during the anterior impingement test (anterior-superior). This could be important for preoperative planning and bone resection (cam resection or acetabular rim trimming) during hip arthroscopy or open hip preservation surgery to ensure that the region of impingement is appropriately identified before treatment.
PDF
