Literature DB >> 19565238

Cam-type femoral-acetabular impingement: is the alpha angle the best MR arthrography has to offer?

Derek G Lohan1, Leanne L Seeger, Kambiz Motamedi, Sharon Hame, James Sayre.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In our institutional experience, determination of the alpha (alpha) angle at MR arthrography as an indicator of the likelihood of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is fraught with inconsistency. The aims of this study were to quantify the degree of variability in and calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the alpha angle in suggesting a diagnosis of cam impingement, to determine the accuracy of a positive clinical impingement test, and to suggest alternative MR arthrographic measures of femoral head-neck overgrowth and determine their diagnostic utilities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of MR arthrographic studies performed during a 4-year period, combined with chart analysis, which allowed identification of 78 patients in whom surgical correlation was also available. The status of a preoperative clinical impingement test was also noted. Patients were designated as having cam-type FAI (Group A, n = 39) if intra-operative femoral head-neck junction bony osteochondroplasty/arthoscopic femoral debridement was performed. Group B (n = 39) acted as controls. Three radiologists independently and blindly performed a series of measurements (alpha angle and two newly proposed measurements) in each patient on two separate occasions. An alpha angle of greater than 55 degrees was considered indicative of the presence of cam-type FAI.
RESULTS: Performance values for alpha angle measurement were poor for each observer. There was considerable (up to 30% of the mean value) intra-observer variability between the first and second alpha angle measurements for each subject. Binary logistic regression analysis confirmed that the alpha angle is of no value in predicting the presence or absence of cam-FAI. A statistically significant difference existed between Groups A and B with regard to the newly proposed anterior femoral distance (AFD; p = 0.004). Using an AFD value of 3.60 mm or greater as being indicative of the presence of cam-FAI yields a 0.67 performance measure (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). The second proposed parameter (femoral neck ratio) was of no value in suggesting the presence or absence of this condition. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the clinical impingement test were 76.9%, 87.2%, 85.7% and 79.1% respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Femoral alpha angle measurement is associated with considerable variability. This index performed poorly in our patient population and was statistically of no value in suggesting the presence or absence of cam-FAI. One of our proposed measures, the AFD, outperformed the alpha angle, though to an insufficient degree to suggest its routine incorporation into clinical practice. Our experience suggests that the clinical impingement test remains the most reliable predictor of the presence of this condition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19565238     DOI: 10.1007/s00256-009-0745-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  10 in total

1.  Femoroacetabular impingement caused by a femoral osseous head-neck bump deformity: clinical, radiological, and experimental results.

Authors:  Marcus Jäger; Alexander Wild; Bettina Westhoff; Rüdiger Krauspe
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.601

Review 2.  Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know.

Authors:  Moritz Tannast; Klaus A Siebenrock; Suzanne E Anderson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Femoroacetabular impingement: can the alpha angle be estimated?

Authors:  Mohamed R Nouh; Mark E Schweitzer; Leon Rybak; Jodi Cohen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Three-dimensional computed tomography of the hip in the assessment of femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Edward Zaragoza; Kambiz Motamedi; Nathan Copelan; Frederick J Dorey
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients.

Authors:  Christian W A Pfirrmann; Bernard Mengiardi; Claudio Dora; Fabian Kalberer; Marco Zanetti; Juerg Hodler
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  M Beck; M Kalhor; M Leunig; R Ganz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-07

7.  Triad of MR arthrographic findings in patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Ara Kassarjian; Luke S Yoon; Etienne Belzile; Susan A Connolly; Michael B Millis; William E Palmer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-21       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement.

Authors:  H P Nötzli; T F Wyss; C H Stoecklin; M R Schmid; K Treiber; J Hodler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2002-05

Review 9.  Osseous abnormalities and early osteoarthritis: the role of hip impingement.

Authors:  Michael Tanzer; Nicolas Noiseux
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 10.  Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  Reinhold Ganz; Javad Parvizi; Martin Beck; Michael Leunig; Hubert Nötzli; Klaus A Siebenrock
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.176

  10 in total
  29 in total

Review 1.  The diagnosis and management of femoro-acetabular impingement.

Authors:  Robert J Macfarlane; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  MRI of hip cartilage: joint morphology, structure, and composition.

Authors:  Stephanie L Gold; Alissa J Burge; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  MRI morphometry, cartilage damage and impaired function in the follow-up after slipped capital femoral epiphysis.

Authors:  Falk R Miese; Christoph Zilkens; Arne Holstein; Bernd Bittersohl; Patric Kröpil; Marcus Jäger; Tallal C Mamisch; Rüdiger Krauspe; Ulrich Mödder; Günther Fürst
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2010-02-24       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  A perspective on femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Thomas C B Pollard
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Femoroacetabular impingement with chronic acetabular rim fracture - 3D computed tomography, 3D magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopic correlation.

Authors:  Avneesh Chhabra; Shaun Nordeck; Vibhor Wadhwa; Sai Madhavapeddi; William J Robertson
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-07-18

6.  Discrete mineralisation of the acetabular labrum: a novel marker of femoroacetabular impingement?

Authors:  W R Cooke; H S Gill; D W Murray; S J Ostlere
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Evaluation of Cam-type femoroacetabular impingement by ultrasound.

Authors:  Solveig Lerch; Andreas Kasperczyk; Janne Warnecke; Thomas Berndt; Oliver Rühmann
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 8.  [Femoroacetabular impingement - Update 2019].

Authors:  Andreas Heuck; Michael Dienst; Christian Glaser
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 0.635

9.  Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects.

Authors:  Vasco V Mascarenhas; Paulo Rego; Pedro Dantas; Augusto Gaspar; Francisco Soldado; José G Consciência
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Cam-type FAI: is the alpha angle the best MR arthrography has to offer? (Skeletal Radiol 2009;38(9):855-62).

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Kawan Rakhra
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.