OBJECTIVE: Cam hips are commonly quantified using the two-dimensional α angle. The accuracy of this measurement may be affected by patient position and the technician's experience. In this paper, we describe a method of measurement that provides a quantitative definition of cam hips based upon three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scans of 47 (24 cam, 23 normal) femurs were segmented. A sphere was fitted to the articulating surface of the femoral head, the radius (r) recorded, and the femoral neck axis obtained. The cross sectional area at four locations spanning the head neck junction (r/4, r/2, 3r/4 and r), perpendicular to the neck axis, was measured. The ratios (Neck/Head) between the areas at each cut relative to the surface area at the head centre were calculated and aggregated. RESULTS: Normal and cam hips were significantly different: the sum of the head-neck ratios (HNRs) of the cam hips were always smaller than normal hips (p < 0.01). A cut off point of 2.55 with no overlap was found between the two groups, with HNRs larger than this being cam hips, and smaller being normal ones. CONCLUSION: Owing to its sensitivity and repeatability, the method could be used to confirm or refute the clinical diagnosis of a cam hip. Furthermore it can be used as a tool to measure the outcome of cam surgery.
OBJECTIVE:Cam hips are commonly quantified using the two-dimensional α angle. The accuracy of this measurement may be affected by patient position and the technician's experience. In this paper, we describe a method of measurement that provides a quantitative definition of cam hips based upon three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scans of 47 (24 cam, 23 normal) femurs were segmented. A sphere was fitted to the articulating surface of the femoral head, the radius (r) recorded, and the femoral neck axis obtained. The cross sectional area at four locations spanning the head neck junction (r/4, r/2, 3r/4 and r), perpendicular to the neck axis, was measured. The ratios (Neck/Head) between the areas at each cut relative to the surface area at the head centre were calculated and aggregated. RESULTS: Normal and cam hips were significantly different: the sum of the head-neck ratios (HNRs) of the cam hips were always smaller than normal hips (p < 0.01). A cut off point of 2.55 with no overlap was found between the two groups, with HNRs larger than this being cam hips, and smaller being normal ones. CONCLUSION: Owing to its sensitivity and repeatability, the method could be used to confirm or refute the clinical diagnosis of a cam hip. Furthermore it can be used as a tool to measure the outcome of cam surgery.
Authors: Asheesh Bedi; Mark Dolan; Iftach Hetsroni; Erin Magennis; Joseph Lipman; Robert Buly; Bryan T Kelly Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Konstantinos Tsitskaris; Khalid Sharif; Lisa M Meacock; Mohit Bansal; Salma Ayis; Patrick L S Li; David A Elias Journal: Hip Int Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.135
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
Authors: Richard W Kang; Adam B Yanke; Alejandro A Espinoza Orias; Alejandro Espinoza Orias; Nozomu Inoue; Shane J Nho Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 4.176