Patient-Specific 3-D Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Based Dynamic Simulation of Hip Impingement and Range of Motion Can Replace 3-D Computed Tomography–Based Simulation for Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement: Implications for Planning Open Hip Preservation Surgery and Hip Arthroscopy

Abstract

Background:

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a complex 3-dimensional (3D) hip abnormality that can cause hip pain and osteoarthritis in young and active patients of childbearing age. Imaging is static and based on 2-dimensional radiographs or computed tomography (CT) scans. Recently, CT-based 3D impingement simulation was introduced for patient-specific assessments of hip deformities, whereas magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers a radiation-free alternative for surgical planning before hip arthroscopic surgery.

Purpose:

To (1) investigate the difference between 3D models of the hip, (2) correlate the location of hip impingement and range of motion (ROM), and (3) correlate diagnostic parameters while comparing CT- and MRI-based osseous 3D models of the hip in symptomatic patients with FAI.

Study Design:

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

The authors performed an institutional review board–approved comparative and retrospective study of 31 hips in 26 symptomatic patients with FAI. We compared CT- and MRI-based osseous 3D models of the hip in the same patients. 3D CT scans (slice thickness, 1 mm) of the entire pelvis and the distal femoral condyles were obtained. Preoperative MRI of the hip was performed including an axial-oblique T1 VIBE sequence (slice thickness, 1 mm) and 2 axial anisotropic (1.2 × 1.2 × 1 mm) T1 VIBE Dixon sequences of the entire pelvis and the distal femoral condyles. Threshold-based semiautomatic reconstruction of 3D models was performed using commercial software. CT- and MRI-based 3D models were compared with specifically developed software.

Results:

(1) The difference between MRI- and CT-based 3D models was less than 1 mm for the proximal femur and the acetabulum (median surface distance, 0.4 ± 0.1 mm and 0.4 ± 0.2 mm, respectively). (2) The correlation for ROM values was excellent (r = 0.99, P < .001) between CT and MRI. The mean absolute difference for flexion and extension was 1.9°± 1.5° and 2.6°± 1.9°, respectively. The location of impingement did not differ between CT- and MRI-based 3D ROM analysis in all 12 of 12 acetabular and 11 of 12 femoral clock-face positions. (3) The correlation for 6 diagnostic parameters was excellent (r = 0.98, P < .001) between CT and MRI. The mean absolute difference for inclination and anteversion was 2.0°± 1.8° and 1.0°± 0.8°, respectively.

Conclusion:

Patient-specific and radiation-free MRI-based dynamic 3D simulation of hip impingement and ROM can replace CT-based 3D simulation for patients with FAI of childbearing age. On the basis of these excellent results, we intend to change our clinical practice, and we will use MRI-based 3D models for future clinical practice instead of CT-based 3D models. This allows radiation-free and patient-specific preoperative 3D impingement simulation for surgical planning and simulation of open hip preservation surgery and hip arthroscopic surgery.