Literature DB >> 25639986

Beyond the alpha angle: Alternative measurements for quantifying cam-type deformities in femoroacetabular impingement.

Christine Ehrmann1,2, Andrea B Rosskopf1,2, Christian W A Pfirrmann1,2, Reto Sutter1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess alternative measurements to the alpha angle as a tool for distinguishing between symptomatic and asymptomatic cam-type deformities of the femoral head.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of 106 individuals (age 20-50 years) from a previous study on the alpha angle were analyzed, including 53 femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients with cam-type deformities and 53 age-/sex-matched asymptomatic volunteers. On radially reformatted MR images two independent radiologists assessed femoral offset and femoral distance (FD) around the femoral head circumference. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were obtained.
RESULTS: The mean offset was smallest in the anterosuperior position for both readers: reader 1 measured 6.2 ± 2.9 mm (standard deviation) in patients and 7.3 ± 1.8 mm in volunteers (P = 0.002, patients vs. volunteers); reader 2 measured 6.1 ± 3.3 mm in patients and 7.1 ± 2.9 mm in volunteers (P = 0.111). The mean FD was highest in the anterosuperior position for reader 1 (patients 3.3 ± 1.4 mm; volunteers 1.7 ± 2.2 mm; P < 0.001) and in the anterior position for reader 2 (patients 3.1 ± 1.7 mm; volunteers 2.0 ± 1.5 mm; P = 0.001). Overall interobserver agreement (ICC) was good (offset 0.657/FD 0.632). ROC analysis for offset measurements showed the largest area under the curve in anterosuperior position for reader 1 (0.666) and in posterosuperior position for reader 2 (0.612). For FD measurements, the area under the curve was largest in anterosuperior position for both readers (0.793/0.798).
CONCLUSION: While FD measurements were superior to offset measurements and showed similar results to the alpha angle, neither FD nor offset measurements are a reliable tool for discrimination between FAI patients with cam-type deformities and asymptomatic volunteers.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FAI; MRI; hip

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25639986     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24861

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  6 in total

1.  Hip shape is symmetric, non-dependent on limb dominance and gender-specific: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. A 3D CT analysis in asymptomatic subjects.

Authors:  Vasco V Mascarenhas; Paulo Rego; Pedro Dantas; Miguel Castro; Lennart Jans; Rui M Marques; Nélia Gouveia; Francisco Soldado; Olufemi R Ayeni; José G Consciência
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  [Femoroacetabular impingement - Update 2019].

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

Review 3.  Glossary of terms for musculoskeletal radiology.

Authors:  William Palmer; Laura Bancroft; Fiona Bonar; Jung-Ah Choi; Anne Cotten; James F Griffith; Philip Robinson; Christian W A Pfirrmann
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  3D CT segmentation of CAM type femoroacetabular impingement-reliability and relationship of CAM lesion with anthropomorphic features.

Authors:  Lihua Zhang; Joel E Wells; Riham Dessouky; Adam Gleason; Rajiv Chopra; Yonatan Chatzinoff; Nicholas P Fey; Yin Xi; Avneesh Chhabra
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  What the Papers Say.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2015-06-17

6.  Best Practices: Hip Femoroacetabular Impingement.

Authors:  Florian Schmaranzer; Arvin B Kheterpal; Miriam A Bredella
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 3.959

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.