Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-05-2017 | Musculoskeletal

Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects

Authors: Vasco V. Mascarenhas, Paulo Rego, Pedro Dantas, Augusto Gaspar, Francisco Soldado, José G Consciência

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2017

Abstract

Objective

Our objectives were to use 3D computed tomography (CT) to define head–neck morphologic gender-specific and normative parameters in asymptomatic individuals and use the omega angle (Ω°) to provide quantification data on the location and radial extension of a cam deformity.

Methods

We prospectively included 350 individuals and evaluated 188 asymptomatic hips that underwent semiautomated CT analysis. Different thresholds of alpha angle (α°) were considered in order to analyze cam morphology and determine Ω°. We calculated overall and gender-specific parameters for imaging signs of cam morphology (Ω° and circumferential α°).

Results

The 95 % reference interval limits were beyond abnormal thresholds found in the literature for cam morphology. Specifically, α° at 3/1 o´clock were 46.9°/60.8° overall, 51.8°/65.4° for men and 45.7°/55.3° for women. Cam prevalence, magnitude, location, and epicenter were significantly gender different. Increasing α° correlated with higher Ω°, meaning that higher angles correspond to larger cam deformities.

Conclusion

Hip morphometry measurements in this cohort of asymptomatic individuals extended beyond current thresholds used for the clinical diagnosis of cam deformity, and α° was found to vary both by gender and measurement location. These results suggest that α° measurement is insufficient for the diagnosis of cam deformity. Enhanced morphometric evaluation, including 3D imaging and Ω°, may enable a more accurate diagnosis.

Key Points

• 95% reference interval limits of cam morphotype were beyond currently defined thresholds.

• Current morphometric definitions for cam-type morphotype should be applied with care.

• Cam prevalence, magnitude, location, and epicenter are significantly gender different.

• Cam and alpha angle thresholds should be defined according to sex/location.

• Quantitative 3D morphometric assessment allows thorough and reproducible FAI diagnosis and monitoring.

Tibor LM, Leunig M (2012) The pathoanatomy and arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint Res 1:245–257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Agricola R, Heijboer MP, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA et al (2013) Cam impingement causes osteoarthritis of the hip: a nationwide prospective cohort study (CHECK). Ann Rheum Dis 72:918–923CrossRefPubMed

Glyn-Jones S, Palmer AJR, Agricola R, et al (2015) Osteoarthritis. Lancet 1–12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60802-3

Tannast M, Goricki D, Beck M et al (2008) Hip damage occurs at the zone of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:273–280CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Frank JM, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, et al (2015) Prevalence of Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging Findings in Asymptomatic Volunteers: A Systematic Review. YJARS 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.042

Mascarenhas VV, Rego P, Dantas P et al (2016) Imaging prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in symptomatic patients, athletes, and asymptomatic individuals: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 85:73–95CrossRefPubMed

Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE (2007) Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1540–1552CrossRefPubMed

Clohisy JC (2008) A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg(Am) 90:47CrossRef

Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R et al (2008) Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:666–675CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaulé PE (2010) Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:464–469CrossRefPubMedCentral

11.

Pfirrmann CWA, Mengiardi B, Dora C et al (2006) Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology 240:778–785CrossRefPubMed

12.

Beaulé PE, Zaragoza EJ, Motamedi K et al (2005) Three-dimensional computed tomography of the hip in the assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res 23:1286–1292CrossRefPubMed

13.

Domayer SE, Ziebarth K, Chan J et al (2011) Femoroacetabular cam-type impingement: diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of radiographic views compared to radial MRI. Eur J Radiol 80:805–810CrossRefPubMed

14.

Dudda M, Albers C, Mamisch TC et al (2008) Do normal radiographs exclude asphericity of the femoral head-neck junction? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:651–659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Rakhra KS, Sheikh AM, Allen D, Beaulé PE (2008) Comparison of MRI alpha angle measurement planes in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:660–665CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Tannast M, Kubiak-Langer M, Langlotz F et al (2006) Noninvasive three-dimensional assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res 25:122–131CrossRef

17.

Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH et al (2002) The contour of the femoral – junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg- Br Vol 84:556–560CrossRef

18.

Nelson AE, Stiller JL, Shi XA et al (2015) Measures of hip morphology are related to development of worsening radiographic hip osteoarthritis over 6 to 13 year follow-up: the Johnston county osteoarthritis project. Osteoarthritis Cartilage / OARS, Osteoarthritis Res Soc. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2015.10.007

19.

Milone MT, Bedi A, Poultsides L et al (2013) Novel CT-based three-dimensional software improves the characterization of Cam morphology. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2484–2491CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Lohan DG, Seeger LL, Motamedi K, et al (2009) Cam-type femoral-acetabular impingement: is the alpha angle the best MR arthrography has to offer? Skeletal Radiol

21.

Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CWA (2012) How useful is the alpha angle for discriminating between symptomatic patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and asymptomatic volunteers? Radiology 264:514–521CrossRefPubMed

22.

Nouh MR, Schweitzer ME, Rybak L, Cohen J (2008) Femoroacetabular impingement: Can the alpha angle Be estimated? Am J Roentgenol 190:1260–1262CrossRef

23.

Gosvig KK, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S et al (2010) Prevalence of malformations of the hip joint and their relationship to sex, groin pain, and risk of osteoarthritis: a population-based survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1162–1169CrossRefPubMed

24.

Fraitzl CR, Kappe T, Pennekamp F et al (2012) Femoral – offset measurements in 339 subjects: distribution and implications for femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:1212–1217CrossRefPubMed

25.

Pollard TCB, Villar RN, Norton MR et al (2010) Femoroacetabular impingement and classification of the cam deformity: the reference interval in normal hips. Acta Orthop 81:134–141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Ross JR, Larson CM, Adeoyo O et al (2014) Residual deformity is the most common reason for revision Hip arthroscopy: a three-dimensional CT study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1388–1395CrossRefPubMedCentral

27.

Rego PRA, Mascarenhas V, Oliveira FS, et al (2015) Morphologic and angular planning for cam resectionin femoro-acetabular impingement: value of the omega angle. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 1–7. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-3053-7

28.

Cvetanovich GL, Harris JD, Erickson BJ et al (2015) Revision Hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of diagnoses, operative findings, and outcomes. Arthroscopy 31:1382–1390CrossRefPubMed

29.

Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, et al (2003) The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res 75–83. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000043047.84315.4b

30.

Lepage-Saucier M, Thiéry C, Larbi A et al (2014) Femoroacetabular impingement: normal values of the quantitative morphometric parameters in asymptomatic hips. Eur Radiol 24:1707–1714CrossRefPubMed

31.

Röling MA, Visser MI, Oei EHG et al (2015) A quantitative non-invasive assessment of femoroacetabular impingement with CT-based dynamic simulation--cadaveric validation study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Klenke FM, Hoffmann DB, Cross BJ, Siebenrock KA (2014) Validation of a standardized mapping system of the hip joint for radial MRA sequencing. Skelet Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00256-014-2026-z

33.

Philippon MJ, Stubbs AJ, Schenker ML et al (2007) Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: osteoplasty technique and literature review. Am J Sports Med 35:1571–1580CrossRefPubMed

34.

Audenaert EA, Baelde N, Huysse W et al (2011) Development of a three-dimensional detection method of cam deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. Skelet Radiol 40:921–927CrossRef

35.

Hack K, Di Primio G, Rakhra K, Beaulé PE (2010) Prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg 92:2436–2444CrossRefPubMed

36.

Kang ACL, Gooding AJ, Coates MH et al (2010) Computed tomography assessment of Hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 38:1160–1165CrossRefPubMed

37.

Scheidt RB, Galia CR, Diesel CV et al (2014) Prevalence of radiographic markers of femoroacetabular impingement in asymptomatic adults. Rev Col Bras Cir 41:36–42CrossRefPubMed

38.

Khanna V, Caragianis A, DiPrimio G et al (2014) Incidence of Hip pain in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic volunteers: is the Cam deformity a risk factor for Hip pain? Am J Sports Med 42:793–797CrossRefPubMed

39.

Van Houcke J, Yau WP, Yan CH et al (2015) Prevalence of radiographic parameters predisposing to femoroacetabular impingement in young asymptomatic chinese and white subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:310–317CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Laborie LB, Lehmann TG, Engesæter I et al (2013) Is a positive femoroacetabular impingement test a common finding in healthy young adults? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2267–2277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Research Group, Nardo L, Parimi N et al (2015) Femoroacetabular impingement: prevalent and often asymptomatic in older Men: the osteoporotic fractures in Men study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4222-0

42.

Reichenbach S, Leunig M, Werlen S et al (2011) Association between cam-type deformities and magnetic resonance imaging-detected structural hip damage: a cross-sectional study in young men. Arthritis Rheum 63:4023–4030CrossRefPubMed

43.

Harris MD, Kapron AL, Peters CL, Anderson AE (2014) Correlations between the alpha angle and femoral head asphericity: implications and recommendations for the diagnosis of cam femoroacetabular impingement. Eur J Radiol 83:788–796CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Masjedi M, Marquardt CS, Drummond IMH et al (2012) Cam type femoro-acetabular impingement: quantifying the diagnosis using three dimensional – ratios. Skelet Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00256-012-1459-5

45.

Reichenbach S, Jüni P, Werlen S et al (2010) Prevalence of cam-type deformity on hip magnetic resonance imaging in young males: a cross-sectional study. Arthritis Care Res 62:1319–1327

46.

Laborie LB, Lehmann TG, Engesaeter IO et al (2011) Prevalence of radiographic findings thought to be associated with femoroacetabular impingement in a population-based cohort of 2081 healthy young adults. Radiology 260:494–502CrossRefPubMed

47.

de Bruin F, Reijnierse M, Farhang-Razi V, Bloem JL (2013) Radiographic signs associated with femoroacetabular impingement occur with high prevalence at all ages in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 23:3131–3139CrossRefPubMed

48.

Siebenrock KA, Wahab KHA, Werlen S, et al (2004) Abnormal extension of the femoral head epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 54–60

49.

Khan O, Witt J (2014) Evaluation of the magnitude and location of Cam deformity using three dimensional CT analysis. Bone Joint J 96-B:1167–1171CrossRefPubMed

50.

Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CWA (2012) Femoral antetorsion: comparing asymptomatic volunteers and patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology 263:475–483CrossRefPubMed

51.

Ricciardi BF, Fields K, Kelly BT et al (2014) Causes and risk factors for revision hip preservation surgery. Am J Sports Med 42:2627–2633CrossRefPubMed

52.

Ito K, Minka-II MA, Leunig M et al (2001) Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. J Bone Joint Surg 83:171–176CrossRef

53.

Yanke AB, Khair MM, Stanley R et al (2015) Sex differences in patients with CAM deformities with femoroacetabular impingement: 3-dimensional computed tomographic quantification. Arthroscopy. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.007

54.

Tannenbaum EP, Zhang P, Maratt JD et al (2015) A computed tomography study of gender differences in acetabular version and morphology: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthrosc: J Arthrosc Relat Surg 31:1247–1254CrossRef

55.

Ross JR, Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ et al (2014) Effect of changes in pelvic tilt on range of motion to impingement and radiographic parameters of acetabular morphologic characteristics. Am J Sports Med 42:2402–2409CrossRefPubMed

56.

Harris MD, Datar M, Whitaker RT et al (2013) Statistical shape modeling of cam femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res 31:1620–1626CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Masjedi M, Mandalia R, Aqil A, Cobb J (2014) Validation of the “FeMorph” software in planning cam osteochondroplasty by incorporating labral morphology. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 1–7. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2014.986654

58.

Steppacher SD, Tannast M, Werlen S, Siebenrock KA (2008) Femoral morphology differs between deficient and excessive acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:782–790CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Xia Y, Fripp J, Chandra SS, et al (2015) Automated 3D quantitative assessment and measurement of alpha angles from the femoral – junction using MR imaging. Physics in Medicine & Biology 7601–7616. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/19/7601

60.

Dandachli W, Islam SU, Liu M et al (2009) Three-dimensional CT analysis to determine acetabular retroversion and the implications for the management of femoro-acetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg - Bri Vol 91:1031CrossRef

61.

Larson CM, Moreau-Gaudry A, Kelly BT et al (2014) Are normal hips being labeled as pathologic? a CT-based method for defining normal acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1247–1254CrossRefPubMedCentral

62.

Heyworth BE, Dolan MM, Nguyen JT et al (2012) Preoperative three-dimensional CT predicts intraoperative findings in Hip arthroscopy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1950–1957CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Kang RW, Yanke AB, Orias AE et al (2012) Emerging ideas: novel 3-D quantification and classification of Cam lesions in patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:358–362CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Kuhn AW, Ross JR, Bedi A (2015) Three-dimensional imaging and computer navigation in planning for hip preservation surgery. Sports Med Arthrosc 23:e31–e38CrossRefPubMed

Title: Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects
Authors: Vasco V. Mascarenhas
Paulo Rego
Pedro Dantas
Augusto Gaspar
Francisco Soldado
José G Consciência
Publication date: 01-05-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4530-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Non-invasive imaging of myocardial bridge by coronary computed tomography angiography: the value of transluminal attenuation gradient to predict significant dynamic compression

Gadoxetate-enhanced MR imaging and compartmental modelling to assess hepatocyte bidirectional transport function in rats with advanced liver fibrosis

CT imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using variable helical pitch scanning and its diagnostic performance for coronary artery disease

Non-invasive quantification of tumour heterogeneity in water diffusivity to differentiate malignant from benign tissues of urinary bladder: a phase I study

Effect of ultra-low doses, ASIR and MBIR on density and noise levels of MDCT images of dental implant sites

Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values