Imaging evaluation of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) plays a major role in early diagnosis and treatment, preventing irreversible degenerative changes in hip joints.
Purpose
To investigate the anatomical parameters associated with FAI in a Chinese asymptomatic population by computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate the prevalence of the radiographic features of cam and pincer types in Chinese patients.
Material and Methods
We reviewed the CT images of 470 hips in 235 Chinese patients who underwent abdominal and pelvic CT scans for reasons unrelated to hip symptoms at our hospital between February and October 2017. The following measurements were made on each hip joint: acetabular version angle (AV); anterior acetabular sector angle (AASA); posterior acetabular sector angle (PASA); the lateral center edge angle (LCE); the alpha angle (AA); and femoral head-neck offset (FHNO).
Results
Significant differences in all parameters were seen between men and women. Young men and elderly women showed more retroversion in our study. LCE, AA, and FHNO were all larger in men than women. The data showed 25% of female joints and 34.5% of male joints had at least one predisposing factor for FAI using measurement parameters by CT images in Chinese asymptomatic patients, and the prevalence of pincer lesion (19.1%) was larger than cam lesion (9.1%).
Conclusion
Morphological features associated with FAI are also present in Chinese asymptomatic patients. The threshold values for abnormal parameters should be reconsidered based on gender, age, and other factors in order to improve the accuracy of diagnosis.
GanzRParviziJBeckM, et al.
Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003;
417:112–120.
2.
SankarWNNevittMParviziJ, et al.
Femoroacetabular impingement: defining the condition and its role in the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Sur2013;
21:S7–S15.
3.
GanzRLeunigMLeunig-GanzK, et al.
The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res2008;
466:264–272.
4.
GenoveseEVinciVAliprandiA, et al.
Femoroacetabular impingement: role of imaging. Musculoskelet Surg2013;
97:117–126.
5.
TannastMSiebenrockKAAndersonSE.Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis–what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol2007;
188:1540–1552.
6.
BeckMKalhorMLeunigM, et al.
Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005;
87:1012–1018.
7.
Lepage-SaucierMThiéryCLarbiA, et al.
Femoroacetabular impingement: normal values of the quantitative morphometric parameters in asymptomatic hips. Eur Radiol2014;
24:1707–1714.
8.
ChakravertyJKSullivanCGanC, et al.
Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: CT findings of features resembling femoroacetabular impingement in a young population without symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol2013;
200:389–395.
9.
DieselCVRibeiroTAScheidtRB, et al.
The prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in radiographs of asymptomatic subjects: a cross-sectional study. Hip Int2015;
25:258–263.
10.
HackKDiPGRakhraK, et al.
Prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010;
92:2436–2444.
11.
KamathSNarayanaswamyS.Computed tomography assessment of hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sport Med2010;
38:1160–1165.
12.
JamaliAAMladenovKMeyerDC, et al.
Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs to assess acetabular retroversion: high validity of the “cross-over-sign”. J Orthop Res2007;
25:758–765.
13.
MinetaKGotoTWadaK, et al.
CT-based morphological assessment of the hip joint in Japanese patients: association with radiographic predictors of femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint J2016;
98-B:1167–1174.
14.
KopydlowskiNJTannenbaumEPBediA, et al.
An increase in cranial acetabular version with age: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. J Arthroplasty2014;
29:1741–1744.
15.
DandachliWIslamSUTippettR, et al.
Analysis of acetabular version in the native hip: comparison between 2D axial CT and 3D CT measurements. Skeletal Radiol2011;
40:877–883.
16.
GotoTMinetaKWadaK, et al.
Correlation between coxa profunda and morphological parameters of acetabular coverage in a Japanese cohort: A CT study. J Orthop Sci2016;
21:667–672.
17.
TekeMGoyaCAlemdarC, et al.
Radiological assessment of femoroacetabular impingement morphology using computed tomography in an asymptomatic young population. Iran J Radiol2016;
4:e13456.
18.
NötzliHPWyssTFStoecklinCH, et al.
The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br2002;
84:556–560.
19.
JesseMKPetersenBStricklandC, et al.
Normal anatomy and imaging of the hip: emphasis on impingement assessment. Semin Musculoskel R2013;
17:229–247.
20.
WengerDEKendellKRMinerMR, et al.
Acetabular labral tears rarely occur in the absence of bony abnormalities. Clin Orthop Relat Res2004;
426:145–150.
21.
JihangKJung-AhCEugeneL, et al.
Prevalence of imaging features on CT thought to be associated with femoroacetabular impingement: a retrospective analysis of 473 asymptomatic adult hip joints. AJR Am J Roentgenol2015;
205:W100–W105.
22.
AbelMFSutherlandDHWengerDR, et al.
Evaluation of CT scans and 3-D reformatted images for quantitative assessment of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop1994;
14:48–53.
23.
TannenbaumEPZhangPMarattJD, et al.
A computed tomography study of gender differences in acetabular version and morphology: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy2015;
31:1247–1254.
24.
TönnisDHeineckeA.Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am1999;
81:1747–1770.
25.
ZaltzIKellyBTHetsroniI, et al.
The crossover sign overestimates acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013;
471:2463–2470.
26.
ErgenFBVudalıSŞanverdiE, et al.
CT assessment of asymptomatic hip joints for the background of femoroacetabular impingement morphology. Diagn Interv Radiol2014;
20:271–276.
27.
JungKARestrepoCHellmanM, et al.
The prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular deformity in asymptomatic adults. J Bone Joint Surg Br2011;
93:1303–1307.
28.
SutterRDietrichTJZinggPO, et al.
How useful is the alpha angle for discriminating between symptomatic patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and asymptomatic volunteers?Radiology2012;
264:514–521.
29.
ItoHMatsunoTHirayamaT, et al.
Three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of non-osteoarthritic adult acetabular dysplasia. Skeletal Radiol2009;
38:131–139.
30.
HouckeJVWanPYYanCH, et al.
Prevalence of radiographic parameters predisposing to femoroacetabular impingement in young asymptomatic Chinese and White subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am2015;
97:310–317.
31.
StephanRMichaelLStefanW, et al.
Association between cam-type deformities and magnetic resonance imaging-detected structural hip damage: a cross-sectional study in young men. Arthritis Rheum2011;
63:4023–4030.
32.
HartofilakidisGBardakosNVBabisGC, et al.
An examination of the association between different morphotypes of femoroacetabular impingement in asymptomatic subjects and the development of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br2011;
93:580–586.
33.
BeckMKalhorMLeunigM, et al.
Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005;
87:1012–1018.
34.
PhilipponMJMaxwellRBJohnstonTL, et al.
Clinical presentation of femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2007;
15:1041–1047.
35.
SuganoNNoblePCKamaricE.A comparison of alternative methods of measuring femoral anteversion. J Comput Assist Tomogr1998;
22:610–614.
36.
BoeseCKJostmeierJOppermannJ, et al.
The neck shaft angle: CT reference values of 800 adult hips. Skeletal Radiol2016;
45:455–463.
