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. 1. Musculoskeletal Imaging Unit, Radiology Department, Imaging Center, Hospital da Luz, Grupo Luz Saúde, Av Lusiada 100, 1500-650, Lisbon, Portugal. vmascarenhas@me.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Algarve, Portimão, Portugal. 3. Musculoskeletal Imaging Unit, Radiology Department, Imaging Center, Hospital da Luz, Grupo Luz Saúde, Av Lusiada 100, 1500-650, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal. 5. Orthopädische Chirurgie München, Munich, Germany. 6. Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 7. Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 8. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. 9. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 10. Elite Sports Imaging, SL, Madrid, Spain. 11. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 12. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 13. Hospital CUF Descobertas, Lisbon, Portugal. 14. The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Gobowen, Oswestry, UK. 15. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany. 16. Department of Radiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. 17. Department of Radiology, AZ Sint-Maarten, Mechelen, Belgium. 18. Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 19. Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Gallen, Switzerland. 20. Radiology Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK. 21. University of Leeds and NHIR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK. 22. Medical School-University of Crete and Computational BioMedicine Laboratory-ICS/FORTH, Heraklion, Greece. 23. Department of Radiology, National Institute of Geriatrics, Rheumatology and Rehabilitation (NIGRiR), Warsaw, Poland. 24. Institute of Radiology, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland. 25. The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia. 26. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 27. Orthopedic and Traumatology Department, Hip Unit, University Hospital Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain. 28. Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología, Centro Médico Teknon, Barcelona, Spain. 29. Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, University Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. 30. Department of Radiology, District Hospital St. Johann, Tyrol, Austria. 31. Department of Radiology, Clínica Cemtro, Madrid, Spain. 32. Röntgeninstitut am Schillerpark, Rainerstrasse, Linz, Austria. 33. Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. 34. Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 35. Department of Radiology, Hospital de la Ribera, Valencia, Spain.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: 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