Literature DB >> 24613175

Correlations between the alpha angle and femoral head asphericity: Implications and recommendations for the diagnosis of cam femoroacetabular impingement.

Michael D Harris1, Ashley L Kapron2, Christopher L Peters3, Andrew E Anderson4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the strength of common radiographic and radial CT views for measuring true femoral head asphericity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 15 patients with cam femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and 15 controls, alpha angles were measured by two observers using radial CT (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°) and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) for the: anterior-posterior (AP), standing frog-leg lateral, 45° Dunn with neutral rotation, 45° Dunn with 40° external rotation, and cross-table lateral views. A DRR validation study was performed. Alpha angles were compared between groups. Maximum deviation from a sphere of each subject was obtained from a previous study. Alpha angles from each view were correlated with maximum deviation.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between alpha angles measured on radiographs and the corresponding DRRs (p=0.72). Alpha angles were significantly greater in patients for all views (p≤0.002). Alpha angles from the 45° Dunn with 40° external rotation, cross-table lateral, and 60° radial views had the strongest correlations with maximum deviation (r=0.831; r=0.823; r=0.808, respectively). The AP view had the weakest correlation (r=0.358).
CONCLUSION: DRRs were a validated means to simulate hip radiographs. The 45° Dunn with 40° external rotation, cross-table lateral, and 60° radial views best visualized femoral asphericity. Although commonly used, the AP view did not visualize cam deformities well. Overall, the magnitude of the alpha angle may not be indicative of the size of the deformity. Thus, 3D reconstructions and measurements of asphericity could improve the diagnosis of cam FAI.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alpha angle; Cam femoroacetabular impingement; Diagnosis; Digitally reconstructed radiograph; Femur asphericity

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24613175      PMCID: PMC4002001          DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  30 in total

1.  How useful is the alpha angle for discriminating between symptomatic patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and asymptomatic volunteers?

Authors:  Reto Sutter; Tobias J Dietrich; Patrick O Zingg; Christian W A Pfirrmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Cefin Barton; Matias J Salineros; Kawan S Rakhra; Paul E Beaulé
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Femoroacetabular cam-type impingement: diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of radiographic views compared to radial MRI.

Authors:  S E Domayer; K Ziebarth; J Chan; S Bixby; T C Mamisch; Y J Kim
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Effects of idealized joint geometry on finite element predictions of cartilage contact stresses in the hip.

Authors:  Andrew E Anderson; Benjamin J Ellis; Steve A Maas; Jeffrey A Weiss
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Femoral head-neck junction deformity is related to osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  Hilton José Melo Barros; Gilberto Luis Camanho; Antônio Carlos Bernabé; Marcelo Bordalo Rodrigues; Luiz Eugênio Garcez Leme
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular deformity in asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  K A Jung; C Restrepo; M Hellman; H AbdelSalam; W Morrison; J Parvizi
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-10

7.  Do plain radiographs correlate with CT for imaging of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement?

Authors:  Jeffrey J Nepple; John M Martel; Young-Jo Kim; Ira Zaltz; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Reliability of various observers in determining common radiographic parameters of adult hip structural anatomy.

Authors:  John C Carlisle; Lukas P Zebala; Derek S Shia; Devyani Hunt; Patrick M Morgan; Heidi Prather; Rick W Wright; Karen Steger-May; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2011

9.  Can the alpha angle assessment of cam impingement predict acetabular cartilage delamination?

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Kelly Hynes; Gillian Parker; Kyle A Kemp
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Is the frog lateral plain radiograph a reliable predictor of the alpha angle in femoroacetabular impingement?

Authors:  S Konan; F Rayan; F S Haddad
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-01
View more
  20 in total

1.  Modified head-neck offset for diagnosing anterior femoro-acetabular impingement.

Authors:  Aloїs Espié; Fanny Elia; Jérôme Murgier; Philippe Chiron; Benoit Chaput
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Does Removal of Subchondral Cortical Bone Provide Sufficient Resection Depth for Treatment of Cam Femoroacetabular Impingement?

Authors:  Penny R Atkins; Stephen K Aoki; Ross T Whitaker; Jeffrey A Weiss; Christopher L Peters; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Which Two-dimensional Radiographic Measurements of Cam Femoroacetabular Impingement Best Describe the Three-dimensional Shape of the Proximal Femur?

Authors:  Penny R Atkins; YoungJae Shin; Praful Agrawal; Shireen Y Elhabian; Ross T Whitaker; Jeffrey A Weiss; Stephen K Aoki; Christopher L Peters; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The influence of radiographic viewing perspective and demographics on the critical shoulder angle.

Authors:  Thomas Suter; Ariane Gerber Popp; Yue Zhang; Chong Zhang; Robert Z Tashjian; Heath B Henninger
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Quantitative comparison of cortical bone thickness using correspondence-based shape modeling in patients with cam femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Penny R Atkins; Shireen Y Elhabian; Praful Agrawal; Michael D Harris; Ross T Whitaker; Jeffrey A Weiss; Christopher L Peters; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  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

7.  Viewing perspective malrotation influences angular measurements on lateral radiographs of the scapula.

Authors:  Thomas Suter; Nicola Krähenbühl; C Kalebb Howell; Yue Zhang; Heath B Henninger
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Measuring 3D growth plate shape: Methodology and application to cam morphology.

Authors:  Rachel E Horenstein; Quentin Meslier; Julia A Spada; Anne Halverstadt; Cara L Lewis; Mo Gimpel; Richard Birchall; Thamindu Wedatilake; Scott Fernquest; Antony Palmer; Siôn Glyn-Jones; Sandra J Shefelbine
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2021-01-10       Impact factor: 3.494

9.  Open Surgical Treatment for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Patients over Thirty Years: Two Years Follow-up Results.

Authors:  Su-Hyun Cho
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2015-12-30

10.  Three-dimensional assessment of impingement risk in geometrically parameterised hips compared with clinical measures.

Authors:  Robert J Cooper; Marlène Mengoni; Dawn Groves; Sophie Williams; Marcus J K Bankes; Philip Robinson; Alison C Jones
Journal:  Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 2.747

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.