Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 429–436 | Cite as

3D-MRI versus 3D-CT in the evaluation of osseous anatomy in femoroacetabular impingement using Dixon 3D FLASH sequence

  • Mohammad SamimEmail author
  • Nima Eftekhary
  • Jonathan M. Vigdorchik
  • Ameer Elbuluk
  • Roy Davidovitch
  • Thomas Youm
  • Soterios Gyftopoulos
Scientific Article



To determine if hip 3D-MR imaging can be used to accurately demonstrate femoral and acetabular morphology in the evaluation of patients with femoroacetabular impingement.

Materials and methods

We performed a retrospective review at our institution of 17 consecutive patients (19 hips) with suspected femoroacetabular impingement who had both 3D-CT and 3D-MRI performed of the same hip. Two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed the imaging for the presence and location of cam deformity, anterior–inferior iliac spine variant, lateral center-edge angle, and neck–shaft angle. Findings on 3D-CT were considered the reference standard. The amount of radiation that was spared following introduction of 3D-MRI was also assessed.


All 17 patients suspected of FAI had evidence for cam deformity on 3D-CT. There was 100% agreement for diagnosis (19 out of 19) and location (19 out of 19) of cam deformity when comparing 3D-MRI with 3D-CT. There were 3 type I and 16 type II anterior–inferior iliac spine variants on 3D-CT imaging with 89.5% (17 out of 19) agreement for the anterior–inferior iliac spine characterization between 3D-MRI and 3D-CT. There was 64.7% agreement when comparing the neck–shaft angle (11 out of 17) and LCEA (11 out of 17) measurements. The use of 3D-MRI spared each patient an average radiation effective dose of 3.09 mSV for a total reduction of 479 mSV over a 4-year period.


3D-MR imaging can be used to accurately diagnose and quantify the typical osseous pathological condition in femoroacetabular impingement and has the potential to eliminate the need for 3D-CT imaging and its associated radiation exposure, and the cost for this predominantly young group of patients.


Femoroacetabular impingement 3D MRI 3D CT 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.



Institutional review board

Institutional review board approval was obtained.


  1. 1.
    Bredella MA, Ulbrich EJ, Stoller DW, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2013;21:45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leunig M, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement. A common cause of hip complaints leading to arthrosis. Unfallchirurg. 2005;108:9–10. 12–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J. The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:556–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagner S, Hofstetter W, Chiquet M, Mainil-Varlet P, Stauffer E, Ganz R, et al. Early osteoarthritic changes of human femoral head cartilage subsequent to femoro-acetabular impingement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11:508–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;(417):112–20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siebenrock KA, Wahab KHA, Werlen S, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. Abnormal extension of the femoral head epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(418):54–60.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murphy S, Tannast M, Kim Y-J, Buly R, Millis MB. Debridement of the adult hip for femoroacetabular impingement: indications and preliminary clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(429):178–81.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanzer M, Noiseux N. Osseous abnormalities and early osteoarthritis: the role of hip impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(429):170–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. 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. 2005;87:1012–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barros HJM, Camanho GL, Bernabé AC, Rodrigues MB, Leme LEG. Femoral head-neck junction deformity is related to osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(7):1920–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tönnis D. Normal values of the hip joint for the evaluation of X-rays in children and adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(119):39–47.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1540–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaulé PE, Kim Y-J, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ, et al. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 4):47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Domayer SE, Ziebarth K, Chan J, Bixby S, Mamisch TC, Kim YJ. Femoroacetabular cam-type impingement: diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of radiographic views compared to radial MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80:805–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    James SLJ, Ali K, Malara F, Young D, O’Donnell J, Connell DA. MRI findings of femoroacetabular impingement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1412–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pfirrmann CWA, Mengiardi B, Dora C, Kalberer F, Zanetti M, Hodler J. Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology. 2006;240:778–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T, Ohzono K, Yoshikawa H. Measurements of pelvic flexion angle using three-dimensional computed tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;(411):140–51.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beaulé PE, Zaragoza E, Motamedi K, Copelan N, Dorey FJ. Three-dimensional computed tomography of the hip in the assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:1286–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buller LT, Rosneck J, Monaco FM, Butler R, Smith T, Barsoum WK. Relationship between proximal femoral and acetabular alignment in normal hip joints using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dandachli W, Najefi A, Iranpour F, Lenihan J, Hart A, Cobb J. Quantifying the contribution of pincer deformity to femoro-acetabular impingement using 3D computerised tomography. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41:1295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heyworth BE, Dolan MM, Nguyen JT, Chen NC, Kelly BT. Preoperative three-dimensional CT predicts intraoperative findings in hip arthroscopy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(7):1950–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milone MT, Bedi A, Poultsides L, Magennis E, Byrd JWT, Larson CM, et al. Novel CT-based three-dimensional software improves the characterization of cam morphology. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(8):2484–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gyftopoulos S, Beltran LS, Yemin A, Strauss E, Meislin R, Jazrawi L, et al. Use of 3D MR reconstructions in the evaluation of glenoid bone loss: a clinical study. Skeletal Radiol. 2014;43:213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gyftopoulos S, Yemin A, Mulholland T, Bloom M, Storey P, Geppert C, et al. 3DMR osseous reconstructions of the shoulder using a gradient-echo based two-point Dixon reconstruction: a feasibility study. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42:347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boese CK, Frink M, Jostmeier J, Haneder S, Dargel J, Eysel P, et al. The modified femoral neck-shaft angle: age- and sex-dependent reference values and reliability analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:8645027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hetsroni I, Poultsides L, Bedi A, Larson CM, Kelly BT. Anterior inferior iliac spine morphology correlates with hip range of motion: a classification system and dynamic model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(8):2497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Audenaert EA, Baelde N, Huysse W, Vigneron L, Pattyn C. Development of a three-dimensional detection method of cam deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40:921–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ross JR, Bedi A, Stone RM, Sibilsky Enselman E, Leunig M, Kelly BT, et al. Intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging to treat cam deformities. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:1370–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Radetzki F, Saul B, Hagel A, Mendel T, Döring T, Delank KS, et al. Three-dimensional virtual simulation and evaluation of the femoroacetabular impingement based on “black bone” MRA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:667–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chhabra A, Nordeck S, Wadhwa V, Madhavapeddi S, Robertson WJ. Femoroacetabular impingement with chronic acetabular rim fracture—3D computed tomography, 3D magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopic correlation. World J Orthop. 2015;6:498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kutty S, Schneider P, Faris P, Kiefer G, Frizzell B, Park R, et al. Reliability and predictability of the centre-edge angle in the assessment of pincer femoroacetabular impingement. Int Orthop. 2012;36:505–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lequesne M, Malghem J, Dion E. The normal hip joint space: variations in width, shape, and architecture on 223 pelvic radiographs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:1145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harris-Hayes M, Royer NK. Relationship of acetabular dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement to hip osteoarthritis: a focused review. PM R. 2011;3:1055–1067.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Birrell F, Silman A, Croft P, Cooper C, Hosie G, Macfarlane G, et al. Syndrome of symptomatic adult acetabular dysplasia (SAAD syndrome). Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:356–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gosvig KK, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Palm H, Troelsen A. Prevalence of malformations of the hip joint and their relationship to sex, groin pain, and risk of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2010;92:1162–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Søballe K, Gebuhr P, Lund B. Joint space width in dysplasia of the hip: a case-control study of 81 adults followed for ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2005;87–B:471–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bouma HW, Hogervorst T, Audenaert E, Krekel P, van Kampen PM. Can combining femoral and acetabular morphology parameters improve the characterization of femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ng KCG, Lamontagne M, Adamczyk AP, Rahkra KS, Beaulé PE. Patient-specific anatomical and functional parameters provide new insights into the pathomechanism of cam FAI. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(12):1289–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lohan DG, Seeger LL, Motamedi K, Hame S, Sayre J. Cam-type femoral-acetabular impingement: is the alpha angle the best MR arthrography has to offer? Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38:855–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dandachli W, Ul Islam S, Tippett R, Hall-Craggs MA, Witt JD. Analysis of acetabular version in the native hip: comparison between 2D axial CT and 3D CT measurements. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40:877–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Harris MD, Reese SP, Peters CL, Weiss JA, Anderson AE. Three-dimensional quantification of femoral head shape in controls and patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41:1162–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cadet ER, Babatunde OM, Gorroochurn P, Chan AK, Stancato-Pasik A, Brown M, et al. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) parameters comparing plain radiographs and advanced, 3D computed tomographic (CT)-generated hip models in a surgical patient cohort. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:2324–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Samim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nima Eftekhary
    • 2
  • Jonathan M. Vigdorchik
    • 2
  • Ameer Elbuluk
    • 2
  • Roy Davidovitch
    • 2
  • Thomas Youm
    • 2
  • Soterios Gyftopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyNew York University Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryNYU Langone Orthopedic HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations