Advertisement

Arthroskopie

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 86–94 | Cite as

Bildgebung des Hüftgelenks beim femoroazetabulären Impingement

  • Simone WaldtEmail author
Leitthema
  • 57 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Für das femoroazetabuläre Impingement (FAI) ist charakteristisch, dass es durch Veränderungen der ossären Morphologie des Hüftgelenks zu einer typischen Konstellation von Labrum- und Knorpelverletzungen kommt, die im Verlauf zu einer Koxarthrose in einem relativ jungen Patientenkollektiv führen kann. Da es sich aber primär um ein klinisches Syndrom handelt, kann die Diagnose eines FAI nur zuverlässig gestellt werden, wenn die Morphometrie des Hüftgelenks sowie die Knorpel- und Labrumschäden in Zusammenschau mit dem klinischen Befund analysiert werden. Die Analyse der ossären Morphologie des Hüftgelenks erfolgt anhand der radiologischen Bildgebung. Die bildgebenden Kriterien und die möglichen Mess- und Analyseverfahren werden in diesem Beitrag zusammengefasst, aber auch deren Anwendung kritisch diskutiert, da die Verfahren Limitationen aufweisen und einige Veränderungen in der asymptomatischen Bevölkerung so häufig sind, dass der kausale Zusammenhang relativiert werden muss. Bezüglich der Diagnostik von Labrum- und Knorpelverletzungen sollen im Folgenden die aktuellen Standards vorgestellt werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Labrum Femurkopf MR-Arthrographie Koxarthrose Deformität 

Imaging of the hip joint in femoroacetabular impingement

Abstract

Femoroacetabular impingement is characterized by changes in the osseous morphology of the hip joint leading to a typical constellation of labral and cartilaginous injuries, which may lead to osteoarthritis in a relatively young patient population. As femoroacetabular impingement is primarily a clinical syndrome, the diagnosis can only be reliably established if the morphometric changes of the hip joint and the cartilaginous and labral injuries are analyzed in combination with the clinical symptoms. Analysis of the osseous morphology of the hip joint is based on radiological imaging. The imaging criteria and the possible qualitative findings and methods of measurement are summarized in this article. The application of the methods of measurement is critically discussed because the procedures have limitations and some changes in the asymptomatic population are so common that the causal relationship must be put into perspective. Current standards in the diagnostics of labral and cartilaginous injuries are presented.

Keywords

Labrum Femoral head MR arthrography Coxarthrosis Deformity 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

S. Waldt gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von der Autorin durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Armbuster TG, Guerra J, Resnick D et al (1978) The adult hip: an anatomic study. Part I: the bony landmarks. Radiology 128(1):1–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R (2005) 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 Br 87:1012–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dudda M, Albers C, Mamisch TC, Werlen S, Beck M (2009) Do normal radiographs exclude asphericity of the femoral head-neck junction? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(3):651–659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganz R, Leunig M, Leunig-Ganz K, Harris WH (2008) The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip: an integrated mechanical concept. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:264–272PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M et al (2003) Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:112–120Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hack K, Di Primio G, Rakhra K, Beaulé PE (2010) Prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(14):2436–2444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ito K, Minka MA, Leunig M et al (2001) Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. A MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:171–176Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kakaty DK, Fischer AF, Hosalkar HS, Siebenrock KA, Tannast M (2010) The ischial spine sign: does pelvic tilt and rotation matter? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(3):769–774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalberer F, Sierra RJ, Madan SS, Ganz R, Leunig M (2008) Ischial spine projection into the pelvis : a new sign for acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:677–683PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kappe T, Kocak T, Neuerburg C, Lippacher S, Bieger R, Reichel H (2011) Reliability of radio-graphic signs for acetabular retroversion. Int Orthop 35(6):817–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leunig M, Beck M, Kalhor M et al (2005) Fibrocystic changes at ante- rosuperior femoral neck: prevalence in hips with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology 236:237–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leunig M, Ganz R (2005) Femoroacetabuläres Impingement. Häufige Ursachen von zur Arthrose führenden Hüftbeschwerden. Unfallchirurg 108(9–10):12–17Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lohan DG, Seeger LL, Motamedi K, Hame S, Sayre J (2009) Cam-type femoral-acetabular impingement: is the alpha angle the best MR arthrography has to offer? Skeletal Radiol 38(9):855–862PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Magee T (2015) Comparison of 3.0-T MR vs 3.0-T MR arthrography of the hip for detection of acetabular labral tears and chondral defects in the same patient population. Br J Radiol 88:20140817PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murgier J, Reina N, Cavaignac E, Espié A, Bayle-Iniguez X, Chiron P (2014) The frequency of sequelae of slipped upper femoral epiphysis in cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint J 96–B:724–729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neumann M, Cui Q, Siebenrock KA, Beck M (2009) Impingement-free hip motion: the “normal” angle alpha after osteochondroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(3):699–703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 84:556–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nouh MR, Schweitzer ME, Rybak L, Cohen J (2008) Femoroacetabular impingement: can the alpha angle be estimated? AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(5):1260–1262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pfirrmann CW, Duc SR, Zanetti M, Dora C, Hodler J (2008) MR arthrography of acetabular cartilage delamination in femoroacetabular cam impingement. Radiology 249(1):236–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pfirrmann CW, Mengiardi B, Dora C et al (2006) Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology 240:778–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pollard TC, Villar RN, Norton MR et al (2010) Femoroacetabular impingement and classification of the cam deformity: the reference interval in normal hips. Acta Orthop 81(1):134–141PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rakhra KS, Sheikh AM, Allen D, Beaulé PE (2009) Comparison of MRI alpha angle measurement planes in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:660–665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K (1999) Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:281–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schäeffeler C, Wörtler K (2012) Impingementsyndrom des Hüftgelenkes. Radiol Up2date 12(1):35–51Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmaranzer F, Klauser K, Kogler M, Henninger D, Forstner T, Reichkendler M, Schmaranzer F (2015) Diagnostic performance of direct traction MR arthrography of the hip: detection of chondral and labral lesions with arthroscopic comparison. Eur Radiol 25(6):1721–1730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siebenrock KA, Wahab KHA, Werlen S, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R (2004) Abnormal extension of the femoral head epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:54–60Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sutter R, Zanetti M, Pfirrmann CW (2012) New developments in hip imaging. Radiology 264(3):651–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE (2007) Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1540–1552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tannast M, Goricki D, Beck M, Murphy SB, Siebenrock KA (2008) Hip damage occurs at the zone of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:273–280PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Waldt S, Eiber M, Wörtler K (2011) Messverfahren in der muskuloskelettalen Radiologie. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Werner CM, Copeland CE, Stromberg J, Ruckstuhl T (2010) Correlation of the cross-over ratio of the cross-over sign on conventional pelvic radiographs with computed tomog- raphy retroversion measurements. Skeletal Radiol 39(7):655–660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tannast M, Goricki D, Beck M et al (2008) Hip damage occurs at the zone of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:273–280PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung für Radiologie und NeuroradiologieAlfried Krupp KrankenhausEssenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations