Penny R Atkins1,2, Niccolo M Fiorentino1, Stephen K Aoki1, Christopher L Peters1,2, Travis G Maak1, Andrew E Anderson1,2,3,4. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 2. Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ischiofemoral impingement (IFI) is a dynamic process, but its diagnosis is often based on static, supine images. PURPOSE: To couple 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) models with dual fluoroscopy (DF) images to quantify in vivo hip motion and the ischiofemoral space (IFS) in asymptomatic participants during weightbearing activities and evaluate the relationship of dynamic measurements with sex, hip kinematics, and the IFS measured from axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Eleven young, asymptomatic adults (5 female) were recruited. 3D reconstructions of the femur and pelvis were generated from MRI and CT. The axial and 3D IFS were measured from supine MRI. In vivo hip motion during weightbearing activities was quantified using DF. The bone-to-bone distance between the lesser trochanter and ischium was measured dynamically. The minimum and maximum IFS were determined and evaluated against hip joint angles using a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: The minimum IFS occurred during external rotation for 10 of 11 participants. The IFS measured from axial MRI (mean, 23.7 mm [95% CI, 19.9-27.9]) was significantly greater than the minimum IFS observed during external rotation (mean, 10.8 mm [95% CI, 8.3-13.7]; P < .001), level walking (mean, 15.5 mm [95% CI, 11.4-19.7]; P = .007), and incline walking (mean, 15.8 mm [95% CI, 11.6-20.1]; P = .004) but not for standing. The IFS was reduced with extension (β = 0.66), adduction (β = 0.22), and external rotation (β = 0.21) ( P < .001 for all) during the dynamic activities observed. The IFS was smaller in female than male participants for standing (mean, 20.9 mm [95% CI, 19.3-22.3] vs 30.4 mm [95% CI, 27.2-33.8], respectively; P = .034), level walking (mean, 8.8 mm [95% CI, 7.5-9.9] vs 21.1 mm [95% CI, 18.7-23.6], respectively; P = .001), and incline walking (mean, 9.1 mm [95% CI, 7.4-10.8] vs 21.3 mm [95% CI, 18.8-24.1], respectively; P = .003). Joint angles between the sexes were not significantly different for any of the dynamic positions of interest. CONCLUSION: The minimum IFS during dynamic activities was smaller than axial MRI measurements. Compared with male participants, the IFS in female participants was reduced during standing and walking, despite a lack of kinematic differences between the sexes. The relationship between the IFS and hip joint angles suggests that the hip should be placed into greater extension, adduction, and external rotation in clinical examinations and imaging, as the IFS measured from static images, especially in a neutral orientation, may not accurately represent the minimum IFS during dynamic motion. Nevertheless, this statement must be interpreted with caution, as only asymptomatic participants were analyzed herein.
BACKGROUND: Ischiofemoral impingement (IFI) is a dynamic process, but its diagnosis is often based on static, supine images. PURPOSE: To couple 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) models with dual fluoroscopy (DF) images to quantify in vivo hip motion and the ischiofemoral space (IFS) in asymptomatic participants during weightbearing activities and evaluate the relationship of dynamic measurements with sex, hip kinematics, and the IFS measured from axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Eleven young, asymptomatic adults (5 female) were recruited. 3D reconstructions of the femur and pelvis were generated from MRI and CT. The axial and 3D IFS were measured from supine MRI. In vivo hip motion during weightbearing activities was quantified using DF. The bone-to-bone distance between the lesser trochanter and ischium was measured dynamically. The minimum and maximum IFS were determined and evaluated against hip joint angles using a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: The minimum IFS occurred during external rotation for 10 of 11 participants. The IFS measured from axial MRI (mean, 23.7 mm [95% CI, 19.9-27.9]) was significantly greater than the minimum IFS observed during external rotation (mean, 10.8 mm [95% CI, 8.3-13.7]; P < .001), level walking (mean, 15.5 mm [95% CI, 11.4-19.7]; P = .007), and incline walking (mean, 15.8 mm [95% CI, 11.6-20.1]; P = .004) but not for standing. The IFS was reduced with extension (β = 0.66), adduction (β = 0.22), and external rotation (β = 0.21) ( P < .001 for all) during the dynamic activities observed. The IFS was smaller in female than male participants for standing (mean, 20.9 mm [95% CI, 19.3-22.3] vs 30.4 mm [95% CI, 27.2-33.8], respectively; P = .034), level walking (mean, 8.8 mm [95% CI, 7.5-9.9] vs 21.1 mm [95% CI, 18.7-23.6], respectively; P = .001), and incline walking (mean, 9.1 mm [95% CI, 7.4-10.8] vs 21.3 mm [95% CI, 18.8-24.1], respectively; P = .003). Joint angles between the sexes were not significantly different for any of the dynamic positions of interest. CONCLUSION: The minimum IFS during dynamic activities was smaller than axial MRI measurements. Compared with male participants, the IFS in female participants was reduced during standing and walking, despite a lack of kinematic differences between the sexes. The relationship between the IFS and hip joint angles suggests that the hip should be placed into greater extension, adduction, and external rotation in clinical examinations and imaging, as the IFS measured from static images, especially in a neutral orientation, may not accurately represent the minimum IFS during dynamic motion. Nevertheless, this statement must be interpreted with caution, as only asymptomatic participants were analyzed herein.
Authors: Ge Wu; Sorin Siegler; Paul Allard; Chris Kirtley; Alberto Leardini; Dieter Rosenbaum; Mike Whittle; Darryl D D'Lima; Luca Cristofolini; Hartmut Witte; Oskar Schmid; Ian Stokes Journal: J Biomech Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Martin Torriani; Silvio C L Souto; Bijoy J Thomas; Hugue Ouellette; Miriam A Bredella Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Penny R Atkins; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Joseph A Hartle; Stephen K Aoki; Christopher L Peters; K Bo Foreman; Andrew E Anderson Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.494
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
Authors: Antônio Augusto Guimarães Barros; Fernanda Bretz Gomes Dos Santos; Carlos César Vassalo; Lincoln Paiva Costa; Sérgio Gonçalves Pereira Couto; Ana Rita da Glória Soares Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2019 Jul-Aug