Skip to main content
Log in

Detection of femoroplasty on pre- and post-arthroscopic comparison radiographs following treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: multi-reader accuracy and agreement study

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess diagnostic accuracy and agreement among radiologists in detecting femoroplasty on pre- and post-arthroscopic comparison frog lateral and anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiographs after treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, 86 patients underwent hip arthroscopy (52 with and 34 without femoroplasty) for treatment of FAI syndrome. Three radiologists blinded to clinical data and chronological order of the pre- and post-arthroscopic comparison radiographs independently examined AP pelvis and frog lateral radiographs to detect femoroplasty changes. Statistical analysis outputs included diagnostic accuracy parameters and inter- and intra-observer agreement.

Results

Identification of femoroplasty in the frog lateral projection has mean sensitivity 70%, specificity 82%, inter-observer agreement κ 0.74–0.76 and intra-observer agreement κ 0.72–0.85. Using the AP pelvis projection to detect femoroplasty has mean sensitivity 32%, specificity 71%, inter-observer agreement κ 0.47–0.65, and intra-observer agreement κ, 0.56–0.84.

Conclusions

Radiologists are only moderately sensitive, though more specific, in femoroplasty detection in the frog lateral projection. The AP pelvis projection yields lower sensitivity and specificity. Both projections have moderate inter- and intra-observer agreement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, O’Donnell J, Agricola R, Awan T, Beck M, et al. The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:1169–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ito K, Minka MA, 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;83:171–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reiman MP, Thorborg K, Hölmich P. Femoroacetabular impingement surgery is on the rise: but what is the next step? J Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 2016;46:406–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Steppacher SD, Anwander H, Zurmühle CA, Tannast M, Siebenrock KA. Eighty percent of patients with surgical hip dislocation for femoroacetabular impingement have a good clinical result without osteoarthritis progression at 10??Years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1333–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Sa D, Urquhart N, Philippon M, Ye J-E, Simunovic N, Ayeni OR. Alpha angle correction in femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:812–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sardana V, Philippon MJ, de Sa D, Bedi A, Ye L, Simunovic N, et al. Revision hip arthroscopy indications and outcomes: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:2047–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hetaimish BM, Khan M, Crouch S, Simunovic N, Bedi A, Mohtadi N, et al. Consistency of reported outcomes after arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:780–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dzaja I, Martin K, Kay J, Memon M, Duong A, Simunovic N, et al. Radiographic outcomes reporting after arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:411–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kottner J, Audig L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:96–106.

  11. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Paul P, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for. Res Methods Reporting. 2015;5527:1–9.

  12. Ilizaliturri VM. Complications of arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement treatment: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:760–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ross JR, Larson CM, Adeoyo O, Kelly BT, Bedi A. Residual deformity is the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy: a three-dimensional CT study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;1388–1395.

  14. Gupta A, Redmond JM, Stake CE, Finch NA, Dunne KF, Domb BG. Does the femoral cam lesion regrow after osteoplasty for femoroacetabular impingement? Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:2149–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ross JR, Bedi A, Stone RM, Sibilsky Enselman E, Leunig M, Kelly BT, et al. Intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging to treat cam deformities: correlation with 3-dimensional computed tomography. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:1370–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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–8S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jackson TJ, Stake CE, Trenga AP, Morgan J, Domb BG. Arthroscopic technique for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Arthrosc Tech. 2013;2:e55–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Landis JR, Koch GG. Agreement measures for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rakhra KS, Sheikh AM, Allen D, Beaulé PE. Comparison of MRI alpha angle measurement planes in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:660–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nepple JJ, Martel JM, Kim YJ, Zaltz I, Clohisy JC. Do plain radiographs correlate with CT for imaging of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3313–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Pfirrmann CW. A, 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.

  22. Audenaert EA, Baelde N, Huysse W, Vigneron L, Pattyn C. Development of a three-dimensional detection method of cam deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. Skelet Radiol. 2011;40:921–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mardones R, Lara J, Donndorff A, Barnes S, Stuart MJ, Glick J, et al. Surgical correction of “cam-type” femoroacetabular impingement: a cadaveric comparison of open versus arthroscopic debridement. Arthroscopy. 2009;25:175–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hellman MD, Mascarenhas R, Gupta A, Fillingham Y, Haughom BD, Salata MJ, et al. The false-profile view may be used to identify cam morphology. Arthroscopy. 2015:1–5.

  25. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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;PAP:181–5.

  27. Hanauer DA, Preib R, Zheng K, Choi SW. Patient-initiated electronic health record amendment requests. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:992–1000.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Stähelin L, Stähelin T, Jolles BM, Herzog RF. Arthroscopic offset restoration in femoroacetabular cam impingement: accuracy and early clinical outcome. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:51–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvonne Y. Cheung.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

This study was partially funded by Dartmouth Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NIH award number UL1TR001086 to Steffen Haider).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haider, S.J., Siegel, A.H., Spratt, K.F. et al. Detection of femoroplasty on pre- and post-arthroscopic comparison radiographs following treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: multi-reader accuracy and agreement study. Skeletal Radiol 47, 233–242 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2789-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2789-0

Keywords

Navigation