Literature DB >> 27787917

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

Penny R Atkins1,2, Shireen Y Elhabian3,4, Praful Agrawal3,4, Michael D Harris5,6, Ross T Whitaker1,3,4, Jeffrey A Weiss1,2,3,4, Christopher L Peters1,2, Andrew E Anderson1,2,3,7.   

Abstract

The proximal femur is abnormally shaped in patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Impingement may elicit bone remodeling at the proximal femur, causing increases in cortical bone thickness. We used correspondence-based shape modeling to quantify and compare cortical thickness between cam patients and controls for the location of the cam lesion and the proximal femur. Computed tomography images were segmented for 45 controls and 28 cam-type FAI patients. The segmentations were input to a correspondence-based shape model to identify the region of the cam lesion. Median cortical thickness data over the region of the cam lesion and the proximal femur were compared between mixed-gender and gender-specific groups. Median [interquartile range] thickness was significantly greater in FAI patients than controls in the cam lesion (1.47 [0.64] vs. 1.13 [0.22] mm, respectively; p < 0.001) and proximal femur (1.28 [0.30] vs. 0.97 [0.22] mm, respectively; p < 0.001). Maximum thickness in the region of the cam lesion was more anterior and less lateral (p < 0.001) in FAI patients. Male FAI patients had increased thickness compared to male controls in the cam lesion (1.47 [0.72] vs. 1.10 [0.19] mm, respectively; p < 0.001) and proximal femur (1.25 [0.29] vs. 0.94 [0.17] mm, respectively; p < 0.001). Thickness was not significantly different between male and female controls. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Studies of non-pathologic cadavers have provided guidelines regarding safe surgical resection depth for FAI patients. However, our results suggest impingement induces cortical thickening in cam patients, which may strengthen the proximal femur. Thus, these previously established guidelines may be too conservative.
© 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:1743-1753, 2017. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FAI and morphology; bone; disease process; statistics

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27787917      PMCID: PMC5407942          DOI: 10.1002/jor.23468

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  36 in total

1.  A RATIONALE AND TEST FOR THE NUMBER OF FACTORS IN FACTOR ANALYSIS.

Authors:  J L HORN
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  1965-06       Impact factor: 2.500

2.  Cam lesion femoral osteoplasty: in vitro biomechanical evaluation of iatrogenic femoral cortical notching and risk of neck fracture.

Authors:  Coen A Wijdicks; B Christian Balldin; Kyle S Jansson; Justin D Stull; Robert F LaPrade; Marc J Philippon
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: evaluation of the effect of the size of the resection.

Authors:  Rodrigo M Mardones; Carlos Gonzalez; Qingshan Chen; Mark Zobitz; Kenton R Kaufman; Robert T Trousdale
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 4.  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

5.  The frog-leg lateral radiograph accurately visualized hip cam impingement abnormalities.

Authors:  John C Clohisy; Ryan M Nunley; Robert J Otto; Perry L Schoenecker
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Generic remeshing of 3D triangular meshes with metric-dependent discrete voronoi diagrams.

Authors:  Sebastien Valette; Jean Marc Chassery; Rémy Prost
Journal:  IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.579

7.  In-vivo hip arthrokinematics during supine clinical exams: Application to the study of femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Ashley L Kapron; Stephen K Aoki; Christopher L Peters; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 2.712

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

Authors:  Michael D Harris; Ashley L Kapron; Christopher L Peters; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Hip internal rotation is correlated to radiographic findings of cam femoroacetabular impingement in collegiate football players.

Authors:  Ashley L Kapron; Andrew E Anderson; Christopher L Peters; Lee G Phillips; Gregory J Stoddard; David J Petron; Robert Toth; Stephen K Aoki
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 10.  New developments in hip imaging.

Authors:  Reto Sutter; Marco Zanetti; Christian W A Pfirrmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  9 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Which Two-dimensional Radiographic Measurements of Cam Femoroacetabular Impingement Best Describe the Three-dimensional Shape of the Proximal Femur?

Authors:  Jonathan H Rylander
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Coracoacromial morphology: a contributor to recurrent traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability?

Authors:  Matthijs Jacxsens; Shireen Y Elhabian; Sarah E Brady; Peter N Chalmers; Robert Z Tashjian; Heath B Henninger
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  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

4.  Statistical shape modeling of femur shape variability in female patients with hip dysplasia.

Authors:  Brecca M M Gaffney; Travis J Hillen; Jeffrey J Nepple; John C Clohisy; Michael D Harris
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  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

6.  Benchmarking off-the-shelf statistical shape modeling tools in clinical applications.

Authors:  Anupama Goparaju; Krithika Iyer; Alexandre Bône; Nan Hu; Heath B Henninger; Andrew E Anderson; Stanley Durrleman; Matthijs Jacxsens; Alan Morris; Ibolya Csecs; Nassir Marrouche; Shireen Y Elhabian
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 8.545

7.  Thinking outside the glenohumeral box: Hierarchical shape variation of the periarticular anatomy of the scapula using statistical shape modeling.

Authors:  Matthijs Jacxsens; Shireen Y Elhabian; Sarah E Brady; Peter N Chalmers; Andreas M Mueller; Robert Z Tashjian; Heath B Henninger
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 3.494

8.  Leveraging unsupervised image registration for discovery of landmark shape descriptor.

Authors:  Riddhish Bhalodia; Shireen Elhabian; Ladislav Kavan; Ross Whitaker
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 13.828

Review 9.  Cortical Bone Mapping: Measurement and Statistical Analysis of Localised Skeletal Changes.

Authors:  Graham Treece; Andrew Gee
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 5.096

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.