Literature DB >> 33411052

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

Vasco V Mascarenhas1, Miguel O Castro2, P Diana Afonso3, Paulo Rego4, Michael Dienst5, Reto Sutter6, Florian Schmaranzer7, Luca Sconfienza8,9, Ara Kassarjian10, Olufemi R Ayeni11, Paul E Beaulé12, Pedro Dantas13, Radhesh Lalam14, Marc-André Weber15, Filip M Vanhoenacker16,17,18, Tobias Johannes Dietrich19, Lennart Jans18, Philip Robinson20,21, Apostolos H Karantanas22, Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska23, Suzanne Anderson24,25, Iris Noebauer-Huhmann26, Oliver Marin-Peña27, Diego Collado28, Marc Tey-Pons29, Ehrenfried Schmaranzer30, Mario Padron31, Josef Kramer32, Patrick O Zingg33, Michel De Maeseneer34, Eva Llopis35.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Imaging assessment for the clinical management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is controversial because of a paucity of evidence-based guidance and notable variability among practitioners. Hence, expert consensus is needed because standardised imaging assessment is critical for clinical practice and research. We aimed to establish expert-based statements on FAI imaging by using formal methods of consensus building.
METHODS: The Delphi method was used to formally derive consensus among 30 panel members from 13 countries. Forty-four questions were agreed upon, and relevant seminal literature was circulated and classified in major topics to produce answering statements. The level of evidence was noted for all statements, and panel members were asked to score their level of agreement (0-10). This is the second part of a three-part consensus series and focuses on 'General issues' and 'Parameters and reporting'.
RESULTS: Forty-seven statements were generated and group consensus was reached for 45. Twenty-five statements pertaining to 'General issues' (9 addressing diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and postoperative imaging) and 'Parameters and reporting' (16 addressing femoral/acetabular parameters) were produced.
CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence was reviewed critically, recommended criteria for diagnostic imaging highlighted, and the roles/values of different imaging parameters assessed. Radiographic evaluation (AP pelvis and a Dunn 45° view) is the cornerstone of hip-imaging assessment and the minimum imaging study that should be performed when evaluating adult patients for FAI. In most cases, cross-sectional imaging is warranted because MRI is the 'gold standard' imaging modality for the comprehensive evaluation, differential diagnosis assessment, and FAI surgical planning. KEY POINTS: • Diagnostic imaging for FAI is not standardised due to scarce evidence-based guidance on which imaging modalities and diagnostic criteria/parameters should be used. • Radiographic evaluation is the cornerstone of hip assessment and the minimum study that should be performed when assessing suspected FAI. Cross-sectional imaging is justified in most cases because MRI is the 'gold standard' modality for comprehensive FAI evaluation. • For acetabular morphology, coverage (Wiberg's angle and acetabular index) and version (crossover, posterior wall, and ischial spine signs) should be assessed routinely. On the femoral side, the head-neck junction morphology (α° and offset), neck morphology (NSA), and torsion should be assessed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic imaging; Femoroacetabular impingement; Guideline; Hip; Orthopaedics

Year:  2021        PMID: 33411052     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07432-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  31 in total

1.  How useful is the alpha angle for discriminating between symptomatic patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and asymptomatic volunteers?

Authors:  Reto Sutter; Tobias J Dietrich; Patrick O Zingg; Christian W A Pfirrmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Femoroacetabular impingement: caution is warranted in making imaging-based assumptions and diagnoses.

Authors:  William E Palmer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  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

4.  Clinical diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Nepple; Heidi Prather; Robert T Trousdale; John C Clohisy; Paul E Beaulé; Siôn Glyn-Jones; Young-Jo Kim
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.020

5.  Hip shape is symmetric, non-dependent on limb dominance and gender-specific: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. A 3D CT analysis in asymptomatic subjects.

Authors:  Vasco V Mascarenhas; Paulo Rego; Pedro Dantas; Miguel Castro; Lennart Jans; Rui M Marques; Nélia Gouveia; Francisco Soldado; Olufemi R Ayeni; José G Consciência
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  The Lisbon Agreement on Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging-part 1: overview.

Authors:  Vasco V Mascarenhas; Miguel O Castro; Paulo A Rego; Reto Sutter; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Ara Kassarjian; Florian Schmaranzer; Olufemi R Ayeni; Tobias Johannes Dietrich; Philip Robinson; Marc-André Weber; Paul E Beaulé; Michael Dienst; Lennart Jans; Radhesh Lalam; Apostolos H Karantanas; Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska; Suzanne Anderson; Iris Noebauer-Huhmann; Filip M Vanhoenacker; Pedro Dantas; Oliver Marin-Peña; Diego Collado; Marc Tey-Pons; Ehrenfried Schmaranzer; Eva Llopis; Mario Padron; Josef Kramer; Patrick O Zingg; Michel De Maeseneer; P Diana Afonso
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Imaging prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in symptomatic patients, athletes, and asymptomatic individuals: A systematic review.

Authors:  Vasco V Mascarenhas; Paulo Rego; Pedro Dantas; Fátima Morais; Justin McWilliams; Diego Collado; Hugo Marques; Augusto Gaspar; Francisco Soldado; José G Consciência
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Imaging Methodology for Hip Preservation: Techniques, Parameters, and Thresholds.

Authors:  Vasco V Mascarenhas; Olufemi R Ayeni; Niels Egund; Anne G Jurik; António Caetano; Miguel Castro; João Novo; Sara Gonçalves; Reto Sutter
Journal:  Semin Musculoskelet Radiol       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 1.777

9.  Prevalence of Femoral and Acetabular Version Abnormalities in Patients With Symptomatic Hip Disease: A Controlled Study of 538 Hips.

Authors:  Till D Lerch; Inga A S Todorski; Simon D Steppacher; Florian Schmaranzer; Stefan F Werlen; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 6.202

10.  The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement.

Authors:  D R Griffin; E J Dickenson; J O'Donnell; R Agricola; T Awan; M Beck; J C Clohisy; H P Dijkstra; E Falvey; M Gimpel; R S Hinman; P Hölmich; A Kassarjian; H D Martin; R Martin; R C Mather; M J Philippon; M P Reiman; A Takla; K Thorborg; S Walker; A Weir; K L Bennell
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 13.800

View more
  2 in total

1.  MRI-based synthetic CT of the hip: can it be an alternative to conventional CT in the evaluation of osseous morphology?

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

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.