Vasco V Mascarenhas1, Paulo Rego2, Pedro Dantas3, António P Caetano4, Lennart Jans5, Reto Sutter6, Rui Mateus Marques7, Olufemi R Ayeni8, J Guimarães Consciência7. 1. MSK Imaging Unit (UIME), Imaging Center, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Hospital CUF Descobertas, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Hospital Curry Cabral, Lisbon, Portugal. 5. Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 6. Department of Radiology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 7. NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal. 8. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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