Top

Published in:

01-04-2018 | Musculoskeletal

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

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2018

Abstract

Objective

To determine the reference intervals (RefInt) of the quantitative morphometric parameters of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in asymptomatic hips with computed tomography (CT) and determine their dependence on age, side, limb dominance and sex.

Methods

We prospectively included 590 patients and evaluated 1111 hips with semi-automated CT analysis. We calculated overall, side- and sex-specific parameters for imaging signs of cam [omega and alpha angle (α°)] and pincer-type morphology [acetabular version (ACvers), lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) and cranio-caudal coverage].

Results

Hip shape was symmetrical and did not depend on limb dominance. The 95% RefInt limits were sex-different for all cam-type parameters and extended beyond current abnormal thresholds. Specifically, the upper limits of RefInt for α° at 12:00, 1:30 and 3:00 o’clock positions were 56°, 70° and 58°, respectively, and 45° for LCEA. Acetabular morphology varied between age groups, with a trend toward an LCEA/ACvers increase over time.

Conclusion

Our morphometric measurements can be used to estimate normal hip morphology in asymptomatic individuals. Notably they extended beyond current thresholds used for FAI imaging diagnosis, which was most pronounced for cam-type parameters. We suggest the need to reassess α° RefInt and consider a 60° threshold for the 12:00/3:00 positions and 65-70° for other antero-superior positions.

Key Points

• Hip shape is symmetrical regardless of limb dominance.

• Pincer/cam morphology is frequent in asymptomatic subjects (20 and 71%, respectively).

• LCEA and acetabular version increases with age (5-7° between opposite age groups).

• Femoral morphology is stable after physeal closure (in the absence of pathology).

• Alpha and omega angle thresholds should be set according to sex.

Available only for authorised users

Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, O'Donnell J et al (2016) The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 50:1169–1176. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096743 CrossRefPubMed

Agricola R, Waarsing JH, Arden NK et al (2013) Cam impingement of the hip: a risk factor for hip osteoarthritis. Nat Publ Group 9:630–634. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2013.114

Hunter DJ, Marin-Pena O (2016) Striving for multidisciplinary consensus on the diagnosis and management of patients with femoroacetabular impingement: more evidence is needed. Br J Sports Med. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096830

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 85:73–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.016 CrossRefPubMed

Ng KCG, Lamontagne M, Beaulé PE (2016) Differences in anatomical parameters between the affected and unaffected hip in patients with bilateral cam-type deformities. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 33:13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.01.007 CrossRef

Agricola R, Weinans H (2015) What causes cam deformity and femoroacetabular impingement: still too many questions to provide clear answers: Figure 1. Br J Sports Med bjsports–2015–094773. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094773

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 264:514–521. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112479 CrossRefPubMed

Thomas GER, Palmer AJR, Batra RN et al (2014) Subclinical deformities of the hip are significant predictors of radiographic osteoarthritis and joint replacement in women. A 20 year longitudinal cohort study. Osteoarthritis and cartilage / OARS. Osteoarthr Res Soc 22:1504–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.06.038 CrossRef

Ehrmann C, Rosskopf AB, Pfirrmann CWA, Sutter R (2015) Beyond the alpha angle: Alternative measurements for quantifying cam-type deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. J Magn Reson Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24861

10.

Mascarenhas VV, Rego PA, Dantas P et al (2016) Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4530-0

11.

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

12.

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

13.

Agricola R, Waarsing JH, Thomas GE et al (2014) Cam impingement: defining the presence of a cam deformity by the alpha angle: data from the CHECK cohort and Chingford cohort. Osteoarthritis Cartil/OARS, Osteoarthr Res Soc 22:218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.007 CrossRef

14.

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 473:1247–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4055-2 CrossRefPubMedCentral

15.

Hack K, Di Primio G, Rakhra K, Beaulé PE (2010) Prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg 92:2436–2444. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01280 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Lepage-Saucier M, Thiéry C, Larbi A et al (2014) Femoroacetabular impingement: normal values of the quantitative morphometric parameters in asymptomatic hips. Eur Radiol 24:1707–1714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3171-4 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Tannast M, Hanke MS, Zheng G et al (2015) What are the radiographic reference values for acetabular under- and overcoverage? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4038-3 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Murtha PE, Hafez MA, Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM (2008) Variations in acetabular anatomy with reference to total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 90:308–313. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B3.19548 CrossRef

19.

Stem ES, O’Connor MI, Kransdorf MJ, Crook J (2006) Computed tomography analysis of acetabular anteversion and abduction. Skelet Radiol 35:385–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-006-0086-4 CrossRef

20.

Hildebrand F, Shin H-O, Flötotto L et al (2012) The prevalence of reduced acetabular anteversion in asymptomatic patients: a retrospective analysis. Z Orthop Unfall 150:601–606. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1327795 PubMed

21.

Peterson JB, Doan J, Bomar JD et al (2014) Sex Differences in Cartilage Topography and Orientation of the Developing Acetabulum: Implications for Hip Preservation Surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4109-5

22.

Shi YY, Liu TJ, Zhao Q et al (2010) The normal centre-edge angle of Wiberg in the Chinese population: a population-based cross-sectional study. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 92:1144–1147. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.23993 CrossRef

23.

Cawley DT, Guerin SJ, Walsh J et al (2015) The significance of hand dominance in hip osteoarthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 44:527–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.11.001 CrossRefPubMed

24.

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

25.

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 16:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0504-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Klenke FM, Hoffmann DB, Cross BJ, Siebenrock KA (2015) Validation of a standardized mapping system of the hip joint for radial MRA sequencing. Skelet Radiol 44:339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-2026-z CrossRef

27.

Philippon MJ, Stubbs AJ, Schenker ML et al (2007) Arthroscopic Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement: Osteoplasty Technique and Literature Review. Am J Sports Med 35:1571–1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546507300258 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Toogood PA, Skalak A, Cooperman DR (2008) Proximal Femoral Anatomy in the Normal Human Population. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:876–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0473-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Köhnlein W, Ganz R, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M (2009) Acetabular Morphology: Implications for Joint-preserving Surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:682–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0682-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Dandachli W, Kannan V, Richards R et al (2008) Analysis of cover of the femoral head in normal and dysplastic hips: new CT-based technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 90:1428–1434. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B11.20073 CrossRef

31.

Leunig M, Jüni P, Werlen S et al (2013) Prevalence of cam and pincer-type deformities on hip MRI in an asymptomatic young Swiss female population: a cross-sectional study. Osteoarthr Cartil 21:544–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.01.003 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Nho J-H, Lee Y-K, Kim HJ et al (2012) Reliability and validity of measuring version of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 94-B:32–36. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B1.27621 CrossRef

33.

Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R et al (2008) Radiographic Evaluation of the Hip has Limited Reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:666–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0626-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Jamali AA, Mak W, Wang P et al (2013) What Is Normal Femoral Head/Neck Anatomy? An analysis of radial CT reconstructions in adolescents. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:3581–3587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3166-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Monazzam S, Bomar JD, Agashe M, Hosalkar HS (2012) Does femoral rotation influence anteroposterior alpha angle, lateral center-edge angle, and medial proximal femoral angle? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1639–1645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2708-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Nepple JJ, Brophy RH, Matava MJ et al (2012) Radiographic findings of femoroacetabular impingement in National Football League Combine athletes undergoing radiographs for previous hip or groin pain. Arthroscopy 28:1396–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.03.005 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R (2003) Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res:241–248. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000030508.43495.79

38.

Zaltz I, Kelly BT, Hetsroni I, Bedi A (2012) The crossover sign overestimates acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2463–2470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2689-5 CrossRefPubMedCentral

39.

Boese CK, Dargel J, Oppermann J et al (2015) The femoral neck-shaft angle on plain radiographs: a systematic review. Skelet Radiol 45:19–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2236-z CrossRef

40.

Boese CK, Jostmeier J, Oppermann J et al (2015) The neck shaft angle: CT reference values of 800 adult hips. Skelet Radiol 45:455–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2314-2 CrossRef

41.

Nakahara I, Takao M, Sakai T et al (2010) Gender differences in 3D morphology and bony impingement of human hips. J Orthop Res 29:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.21265 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Chakraverty JK, Sullivan C, Gan C et al (2013) Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: CT findings of features resembling femoroacetabular impingement in a young population without symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:389–395. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8546 CrossRefPubMed

43.

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 42:793–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513518417 CrossRefPubMed

44.

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 38:1160–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509358320 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Dandachli W, Najefi A, Iranpour F et al (2012) Quantifying the contribution of pincer deformity to femoro-acetabular impingement using 3D computerised tomography. Skelet Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-012-1389-2

46.

Tönnis D, Heinecke A (1999) Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1747–1770CrossRefPubMed

47.

Reikeras O, Bjerkreim I, Kolbenstvedt A (1983) Anteversion of the acetabulum and femoral neck in normals and in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Acta Orthop Scand 54:18–23CrossRefPubMed

48.

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 31:1247–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.02.007 CrossRef

49.

Dandachli W, Ul Islam S, Tippett R et al (2011) Analysis of acetabular version in the native hip: comparison between 2D axial CT and 3D CT measurements. Skelet Radiol 40:877–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-1065-3 CrossRef

50.

Werner CML, Ramseier LE, Ruckstuhl T et al (2012) Normal values of Wiberg’s lateral center-edge angle and Lequesne’s acetabular index–a coxometric update. Skelet Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-012-1420-7

51.

Fowkes LA, Petridou E, Zagorski C et al (2011) Defining a reference range of acetabular inclination and center-edge angle of the hip in asymptomatic individuals. Skelet Radiol 40:1427–1434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1109-3 CrossRef

52.

Wassilew GI, Heller MO, Diederichs G et al (2012) Standardized AP radiographs do not provide reliable diagnostic measures for the assessment of acetabular retroversion. J Orthop Res 30:1369–1376. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22086 CrossRefPubMed

53.

Ayeni OR, Chan K, Whelan DB et al (2014) Diagnosing femoroacetabular impingement from plain radiographs: do radiologists and orthopaedic surgeons differ? Orthop J Sports Med 2:2325967114541414. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967114541414 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Golfam M, Di Primio LA, Beaulé PE et al (2017) Alpha angle measurements in healthy adult volunteers vary depending on the MRI plane acquisition used. Am J Sports Med 45:620–626. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0921 CrossRefPubMed

55.

Vo A, Beaulé PE, Sampaio ML et al (2015) The femoral head-neck contour varies as a function of physeal development. Bone Joint Res 4:17–22. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.42.2000356 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Nepple JJ, Riggs CN, Ross JR, Clohisy JC (2014) Clinical presentation and disease characteristics of femoroacetabular impingement are sex-dependent. J Bone Joint Surg 96:1683–1689. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.01320 CrossRefPubMed

57.

Lindner D, Bitar El YF, Jackson TJ et al (2014) Sex-based differences in the clinical presentation of patients with symptomatic hip labral tears. Am J Sports Med 42:1365–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514532226 CrossRefPubMed

58.

Joseph R, Pan X, Cenkus K et al (2016) Sex differences in self-reported hip function up to 2 years after arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 44:54–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515610535 CrossRefPubMed

59.

Frank RM, Lee S, Bush-Joseph CA et al (2016) Outcomes for hip arthroscopy according to sex and age: a comparative matched-group analysis. J Bone Joint Surg 98:797–804. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00445 CrossRefPubMed

60.

Malviya A, Raza A, Jameson S et al (2015) Complications and survival analyses of hip arthroscopies performed in the National Health Service in England: A review of 6,395 cases. Arthroscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.013

61.

Gosvig KK, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Gebuhr P (2008) The prevalence of cam-type deformity of the hip joint: a survey of 4151 subjects of the Copenhagen Osteoarthritis Study. Acta Radiol 49:436–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850801935567 CrossRefPubMed

62.

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 81:134–141. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453671003619011 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Agricola R, Heijboer MP, Ginai AZ et al (2014) A cam deformity is gradually acquired during skeletal maturation in adolescent and young male soccer players: a prospective study with minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 42:798–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514524364 CrossRefPubMed

64.

MacKelvie KJ, Khan KM, McKay HA (2002) Is there a critical period for bone response to weight-bearing exercise in children and adolescents? a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 36:250–257 discussion 257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Agricola R, Bessems JHJM, Ginai AZ et al (2012) The development of cam-type deformity in adolescent and young male soccer players. Am J Sports Med 40:1099–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512438381 CrossRefPubMed

66.

Hetsroni I, Torre Dela K, Duke G et al (2013) Sex differences of hip morphology in young adults with hip pain and labral tears. Arthroscopy 29:54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.07.008 CrossRefPubMed

67.

Atkinson HD, Johal KS, Willis-Owen C et al (2010) Differences in hip morphology between the sexes in patients undergoing hip resurfacing. J Orthop Surg Res 5:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-76 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Larson CM, Sikka RS, Sardelli MC et al (2013) Increasing alpha angle is predictive of athletic-related "hip" and “groin” pain in collegiate national football league prospects. YJARS 29:405–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.10.024

69.

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

70.

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 92:1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01674 CrossRefPubMed

71.

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 260:494–502. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102354 CrossRefPubMed

72.

Laborie LB, Lehmann TG, Engesaeter IO et al (2014) The alpha angle in cam-type femoroacetabular impingement: new reference intervals based on 2038 healthy young adults. Bone Joint J 96-B:449–454. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.32194 CrossRefPubMed

73.

Ranawat AS, Schulz B, Baumbach SF et al (2011) Radiographic predictors of hip pain in femoroacetabular impingement. HSS Jrnl 7:115–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-010-9192-x CrossRef

74.

Bardakos NV, Villar RN (2009) Predictors of progression of osteoarthritis in femoroacetabular impingement: a radiological study with a minimum of ten years follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 91:162–169. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B2 CrossRef

Title: 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
Publication date: 01-04-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5072-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Dual-layer DECT for multiphasic hepatic CT with 50 percent iodine load: a matched-pair comparison with a 120 kVp protocol

Application of DWIBS in malignant lymphoma: correlation between ADC values and Ki-67 index

Morphological classification of intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct

Whole-tumour diffusion kurtosis MR imaging histogram analysis of rectal adenocarcinoma: Correlation with clinical pathologic prognostic factors

Non-invasive methods for estimating mPAP in COPD using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

Conventional and synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a comparative study