Mohammad Samim1, Nima Eftekhary2, Jonathan M Vigdorchik2, Ameer Elbuluk2, Roy Davidovitch2, Thomas Youm2, Soterios Gyftopoulos3. 1. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, 333 East 38th street, New York, NY, 10016, USA. mohammad.samim@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, 333 East 38th street, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if hip 3D-MR imaging can be used to accurately demonstrate femoral and acetabular morphology in the evaluation of patients with femoroacetabular impingement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review at our institution of 17 consecutive patients (19 hips) with suspected femoroacetabular impingement who had both 3D-CT and 3D-MRI performed of the same hip. Two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed the imaging for the presence and location of cam deformity, anterior-inferior iliac spine variant, lateral center-edge angle, and neck-shaft angle. Findings on 3D-CT were considered the reference standard. The amount of radiation that was spared following introduction of 3D-MRI was also assessed. RESULTS: All 17 patients suspected of FAI had evidence for cam deformity on 3D-CT. There was 100% agreement for diagnosis (19 out of 19) and location (19 out of 19) of cam deformity when comparing 3D-MRI with 3D-CT. There were 3 type I and 16 type II anterior-inferior iliac spine variants on 3D-CT imaging with 89.5% (17 out of 19) agreement for the anterior-inferior iliac spine characterization between 3D-MRI and 3D-CT. There was 64.7% agreement when comparing the neck-shaft angle (11 out of 17) and LCEA (11 out of 17) measurements. The use of 3D-MRI spared each patient an average radiation effective dose of 3.09 mSV for a total reduction of 479 mSV over a 4-year period. CONCLUSION: 3D-MR imaging can be used to accurately diagnose and quantify the typical osseous pathological condition in femoroacetabular impingement and has the potential to eliminate the need for 3D-CT imaging and its associated radiation exposure, and the cost for this predominantly young group of patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if hip 3D-MR imaging can be used to accurately demonstrate femoral and acetabular morphology in the evaluation of patients with femoroacetabular impingement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review at our institution of 17 consecutive patients (19 hips) with suspected femoroacetabular impingement who had both 3D-CT and 3D-MRI performed of the same hip. Two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed the imaging for the presence and location of cam deformity, anterior-inferior iliac spine variant, lateral center-edge angle, and neck-shaft angle. Findings on 3D-CT were considered the reference standard. The amount of radiation that was spared following introduction of 3D-MRI was also assessed. RESULTS: All 17 patients suspected of FAI had evidence for cam deformity on 3D-CT. There was 100% agreement for diagnosis (19 out of 19) and location (19 out of 19) of cam deformity when comparing 3D-MRI with 3D-CT. There were 3 type I and 16 type II anterior-inferior iliac spine variants on 3D-CT imaging with 89.5% (17 out of 19) agreement for the anterior-inferior iliac spine characterization between 3D-MRI and 3D-CT. There was 64.7% agreement when comparing the neck-shaft angle (11 out of 17) and LCEA (11 out of 17) measurements. The use of 3D-MRI spared each patient an average radiation effective dose of 3.09 mSV for a total reduction of 479 mSV over a 4-year period. CONCLUSION: 3D-MR imaging can be used to accurately diagnose and quantify the typical osseous pathological condition in femoroacetabular impingement and has the potential to eliminate the need for 3D-CT imaging and its associated radiation exposure, and the cost for this predominantly young group of patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D CT; 3D MRI; Femoroacetabular impingement
Authors: Miguel O Castro; Vasco V Mascarenhas; P Diana Afonso; Paulo Rego; Florian Schmaranzer; Reto Sutter; Ara Kassarjian; Luca Sconfienza; Michael Dienst; Olufemi R Ayeni; Paul E Beaulé; Pedro Dantas; Radhesh Lalam; Marc-André Weber; Filip M Vanhoenacker; Tobias Johannes Dietrich; Lennart Jans; Philip Robinson; Apostolos H Karantanas; Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska; Suzanne Anderson; Iris Noebauer-Huhmann; Oliver Marin-Peña; Diego Collado; Marc Tey-Pons; Ehrenfried Schmaranzer; Mario Padron; Josef Kramer; Patrick O Zingg; Michel De Maeseneer; Eva Llopis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marc Fischer; Sven S Walter; Tobias Hepp; Manuela Zimmer; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Fritz Schick; Bin Yang Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2021-06-02
Authors: Thomas D Alter; Derrick M Knapik; Martina Guidetti; Alejandro Espinoza; Jorge Chahla; Shane J Nho; Philip Malloy Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Tatiane Cantarelli Rodrigues; Cem M Deniz; Erin F Alaia; Natalia Gorelik; James S Babb; Jared Dublin; Soterios Gyftopoulos Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-09-09
Authors: Lieve Morbée; Min Chen; Thomas Van Den Berghe; Eva Schiettecatte; Robert Gosselin; Nele Herregods; Lennart B O Jans Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas D Alter; Philip Malloy; Alex C Newhouse; Sunikom Suppauksorn; Alejandro Espinzoa Orias; Jorge Chahla; Nozomu Inoue; Shane J Nho Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-09-27
Authors: Jun Zhou; Heath P Melugin; Rena F Hale; Bryant M Song; Kelechi R Okoroha; Bruce A Levy; Aaron J Krych Journal: J Hip Preserv Surg Date: 2021-06-22
Authors: Mateusz C Florkow; Koen Willemsen; Frank Zijlstra; Wouter Foppen; Bart C H van der Wal; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Max A Viergever; René M Castelein; Harrie Weinans; Marijn van Stralen; Ralph J B Sakkers; Peter R Seevinck Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.102