Literature DB >> 30379583

Can We Discriminate Symptomatic Hip Patients From Asymptomatic Volunteers Based on Anatomic Predictors? A 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Study on Cam, Pincer, and Spinopelvic Parameters.

Vasco V Mascarenhas1, Paulo Rego2, Pedro Dantas3, António P Caetano4, Lennart Jans5, Reto Sutter6, Rui Mateus Marques7, Olufemi R Ayeni8, J Guimarães Consciência7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Given the high prevalence of patients with hip deformities and no ongoing hip dysfunction, understanding the anatomic factors predicting the symptomatic state is critical. One such variable is how the spinopelvic parameters (SPPs) may interplay with hip anatomic factors. HYPOTHESIS/
PURPOSE: SPPs and femoral- and acetabular-specific parameters may predict which patients will become symptomatic. The purpose was to determine which anatomic characteristics with specific cutoffs were associated with hip symptom development and how these parameters relate to each other. STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: 548 participants were designated either symptomatic patients (n = 176, scheduled for surgery with hip pain and/or functional limitation) or asymptomatic volunteers (n = 372, no pain) and underwent 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Multiple femoral (α angle, Ω angle, neck angle, torsion), acetabular (version, coverage), and spinopelvic (pelvic tilt, sacral slope [SS], pelvic incidence) parameters were measured semiautomatically. Normative values, optimal differentiating thresholds, and a logistic regression analysis were computed.
RESULTS: Symptomatic patients had larger cam deformities (defined by increased Ω angle and α angle), smaller acetabular coverage, and larger pelvic incidence and SS angles compared with the asymptomatic volunteers. Discriminant receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed that radial 2-o'clock α angle (threshold 58°-60°, sensitivity 75%-60%, specificity 80%-84%; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.831), Ω angle (threshold 43°, sensitivity 72%, specificity 70%; AUC = 0.830), acetabular inclination (threshold 6°, sensitivity 65%, specificity 70%; AUC = 0.709), and SS (threshold 44°, sensitivity 72%, specificity 75%; AUC = 0.801) ( P < .005) were the best parameters to classify participants. When parameters were entered into a logistic regression, significant positive predictors for the symptomatic patients were achieved for SS, acetabular inclination, Ω angle, and α angle at 2-o'clock, correctly classifying 85% of cases (model sensitivity 72%, specificity 91%; AUC = 0.919).
CONCLUSION: Complex dynamic interplay exists between the hip and SPPs. A cam deformity, acetabular undercoverage, and increased SPP angles are predictive of a hip symptomatic state. SPPs were significant to discriminate between participants and were important in combination with other hip deformities. Symptomatic patients can be effectively differentiated from asymptomatic volunteers based on predictive anatomic factors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  femoroacetabular impingement; hip; reference values; spinopelvic

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30379583     DOI: 10.1177/0363546518800825

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  10 in total

1.  Acetabular coverage differs between standing and supine positions: model-based assessment of low-dose biplanar radiographs and comparison with CT.

Authors:  Benjamin Fritz; Christoph A Agten; Franca K Boldt; Patrick O Zingg; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Reto Sutter
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The Lisbon Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement imaging-part 2: general issues, parameters, and reporting.

Authors:  Vasco V Mascarenhas; Miguel O Castro; P Diana Afonso; Paulo Rego; Michael Dienst; Reto Sutter; Florian Schmaranzer; Luca Sconfienza; Ara Kassarjian; 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

3.  Hip arthroscopy with initial access to the peripheral compartment provides significant improvement in FAI patients.

Authors:  Pedro Dantas; Sérgio Gonçalves; Vasco Mascarenhas; Antonio Camporese; Oliver Marin-Peña
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Classifying Cam Morphology by the Alpha Angle: A Systematic Review on Threshold Values.

Authors:  Pim van Klij; Michael P Reiman; Jan H Waarsing; Max Reijman; Wichor M Bramer; Jan A N Verhaar; Rintje Agricola
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-08-10

5.  Spinopelvic Parameters Do Not Predict the Sagittal Orientation of the Acetabulum.

Authors:  Munif Hatem; Scott J Nimmons; Anthony Nicholas Khoury; Hal David Martin
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-10-14

6.  Tibial torsion analysis in computed tomography: development and validation of a real 3D measurement technique.

Authors:  Armando Hoch; Tabitha Roth; Magda Marcon; Philipp Fürnstahl; Sandro F Fucentese; Reto Sutter
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-02-15

7.  Cam morphology is associated with MRI-defined cartilage defects and labral tears: a case-control study of 237 young adult football players with and without hip and groin pain.

Authors:  Joshua Heerey; Joanne Kemp; Rintje Agricola; Ramya Srinivasan; Anne Smith; Tania Pizzari; Matthew King; Peter Lawrenson; Mark Scholes; Thomas Link; Richard Souza; Sharmila Majumdar; Kay Crossley
Journal:  BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med       Date:  2021-12-15

8.  Are cam morphology size and location associated with self-reported burden in football players with FAI syndrome?

Authors:  Mark J Scholes; Joanne L Kemp; Benjamin F Mentiplay; Joshua J Heerey; Rintje Agricola; Matthew G King; Adam I Semciw; Peter R Lawrenson; Kay M Crossley
Journal:  Scand J Med Sci Sports       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 4.645

Review 9.  Over one third of patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement display femoral or acetabular version abnormalities.

Authors:  Zaki Arshad; Henry David Maughan; Karadi Hari Sunil Kumar; Matthew Pettit; Arvind Arora; Vikas Khanduja
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.114

10.  A three-dimensional measurement method on MR arthrography of the hip to classify femoro-acetabular impingement.

Authors:  Cosimo Nardi; Luisa De Falco; Giuseppe Caracchini; Linda Calistri; Laura Mercatelli; Stefano Cristin; Chiara Lorini; Edoardo Cavigli; Nicholas Landini; Martina Orlandi; Christian Carulli; Vittorio Miele
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 2.374

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.