Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 8, pp 2484–2491 | Cite as

Novel CT-based Three-dimensional Software Improves the Characterization of Cam Morphology

  • Michael T. Milone
  • Asheesh Bedi
  • Lazaros Poultsides
  • Erin Magennis
  • J. W. Thomas Byrd
  • Christopher M. Larson
  • Bryan T. Kelly
Symposium: Advanced Hip Arthroscopy

Abstract

Background

Incomplete correction of femoral offset and sphericity remains the leading cause for revision surgery for symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Because arthroscopic exploration is technically difficult, a detailed preoperative understanding of morphology is of paramount importance for preoperative decision-making.

Questions/purposes

The purposes of this study were to (1) characterize the size and location of peak cam deformity with a prototype CT-based software program; (2) compare software alpha angles with those obtained by plain radiograph and CT images; and (3) assess whether differences can be explained by variable measurement locations.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the preoperative plain radiographs and CT scans of 100 symptomatic cam lesions treated by arthroscopy; recorded alpha angle and clockface measurement location with a novel prototype CT-based software program, CT, and Dunn lateral plain radiographs; and used ordinary least squares regressions to assess the relationship between alpha angle and measurement location.

Results

The software determined a mean alpha angle of 70.8° at 1:23 o’clock and identified 60% of maximum alpha angles between 12:45 and 1:45. The CT and plain radiographs underestimated by 5.7° and 8.2°, respectively. The software-based location was anterosuperior to the mean CT and plain radiograph measurement locations by 41 and 97 minutes, respectively. Regression analysis confirmed a correlation between alpha angle differences and variable measurement locations.

Conclusions

Software-based three-dimensional (3-D) imaging generated alpha angles larger than those found by plain radiograph and CT, and these differences were the result of location of measurement. An automated 3-D assessment that accurately describes the location and topography of FAI may be needed to adequately characterize preoperative deformity.

Level of Evidence

Level III, diagnostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen D, Beaule PE, Ramadan O, Doucette S. Prevalence of associated deformities and hip pain in patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:589–594.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson LA, Peters CL, Park BB, Stoddard GJ, Erickson JA, Crim JR. Acetabular cartilage delamination in femoroacetabular impingement. Risk factors and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:305–313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banerjee P, McLean CR. Femoroacetabular impingement: a review of diagnosis and management. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4:23–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bardakos NV, Villar RN. Predictors of progression of osteoarthritis in femoroacetabular impingement: a radiological study with a minimum of ten years follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:162–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaule PE. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:464–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beaule 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;23:1286–1292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;87:1012–1018.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bedi A, Chen N, Robertson W, Kelly BT. The management of labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement of the hip in the young, active patient. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:1135–1145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bedi A, Dolan M, Leunig M, Kelly BT. Static and dynamic mechanical causes of hip pain. Arthroscopy. 2011;27:235–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bedi A, Zaltz I, De La Torre K, Kelly BT. Radiographic comparison of surgical hip dislocation and hip arthroscopy for treatment of cam deformity in femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(Suppl):20S–28S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R, Kim YJ, Beaule PE, Morgan P, Steger-May K, Schoenecker PL, Millis M. Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:666–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;80:805–810.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guanche CA, Bare AA. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2006;22:95–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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;470:1950–1957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ito K, Minka MA 2nd, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. A MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:171–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnston TL, Schenker ML, Briggs KK, Philippon MJ. Relationship between offset angle alpha and hip chondral injury in femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:669–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly BT, Weiland DE, Schenker ML, Philippon MJ. Arthroscopic labral repair in the hip: surgical technique and review of the literature. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:1496–1504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Konan S, Rayan F, Haddad FS. Is the frog lateral plain radiograph a reliable predictor of the alpha angle in femoroacetabular impingement? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:47–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larson CM, Giveans MR. Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: early outcomes measures. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:540–546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leunig M, Beck M, Kalhor M, Kim YJ, Werlen S, Ganz R. Fibrocystic changes at anterosuperior femoral neck: prevalence in hips with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology. 2005;236:237–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leunig M, Beck M, Woo A, Dora C, Kerboull M, Ganz R. Acetabular rim degeneration: a constant finding in the aged hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:201–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mardones R, Gonzalez C, Chen Q, Zobitz M, Kaufman KR, Trousdale RT. Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: evaluation of the effect of the size of the resection. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 1):84–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mardones R, Lara J, Donndorff A, Barnes S, Stuart MJ, Glick J, Trousdale R. Surgical correction of ‘cam-type’ femoroacetabular impingement: a cadaveric comparison of open versus arthroscopic débridement. Arthroscopy. 2009;25:175–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M. Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;445:181–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nepple JJ, Martel JM, Young-Jo K, Zaltz I, Clohisy JC. Do plain radiographs correlate with CT for imaging of cam-type femoracetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3313–4420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ng VY, Arora N, Best TM, Pan X, Ellis TJ. Efficacy of surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:2337–2345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Notzli 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;84:556–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pfirrmann CW, Mengiardi B, Dora C, Kalberer F, Zanetti M, Hodler J. Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology. 2006;240:778–785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Philippon MJ, Kuppersmith DA, Wolff AB, Briggs KK. Arthroscopic findings following traumatic hip dislocation in 14 professional athletes. Arthroscopy. 2009;25:169–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Philippon MJ, Schenker ML, Briggs KK, Kuppersmith DA, Maxwell RB, Stubbs AJ. Revision hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:1918–1921.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rakhra KS, Sheikh AM, Allen D, Beaule PE. Comparison of MRI alpha angle measurement planes in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:660–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Robertson WJ, Kadrmas WR, Kelly BT. Arthroscopic management of labral tears in the hip: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:88–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1540–1552.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tanzer M, Noiseux N. Osseous abnormalities and early osteoarthritis: the role of hip impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:170–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael T. Milone
    • 1
  • Asheesh Bedi
    • 2
  • Lazaros Poultsides
    • 3
  • Erin Magennis
    • 3
  • J. W. Thomas Byrd
    • 4
  • Christopher M. Larson
    • 5
  • Bryan T. Kelly
    • 3
  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Nashville Sports Medicine FoundationNashvilleUSA
  5. 5.Twin Cities OrthopaedicsEdinaUSA

Personalised recommendations