Radiology of the Hip Joint

  • Florian SchmaranzerEmail author
  • Till D. Lerch
  • Inga A. S. Todorski
  • Moritz Tannast
  • Simon Steppacher
Part of the Fracture Management Joint by Joint book series (FMJJ)


The aim of this chapter is to describe the different imaging modalities of the hip in the trauma setting; this includes the conventional radiography, which is still an essential modality for fracture evaluation due to fast acquisition, cost effectiveness, and the good overview on hip morphology. However, the acquisition technique has a direct implication on radiographic anatomy of the hip and, therefore, this chapter also aims to demonstrate the different technical principles and views of conventional imaging of the hip. In the trauma setting computed tomography (CT) has emerged as an indispensable tool for detailed preoperative planning with the possibility of 3D-reconstruction and multiplanar reformatting. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the hip is of minor significance in acute hip trauma but is very helpful to detect occult fractures, assess soft tissue injuries, or evaluate posttraumatic deformities.


Hip fracture Acetabular fracture Femur fracture Trauma imaging Conventional imaging Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging 


  1. 1.
    Karantanas AH. What’s new in the use of MRI in the orthopaedic trauma patient? Injury. 2014;45:923–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis–what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1540–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke-Jenssen J, Øvre SA, Røise O, Madsen JE. Acetabular fracture assessment in four different pelvic trauma centers: have the Judet views become superfluous? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:913–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ricci WM, Mamczak C, Tynan M, Streubel P, Gardner M. Pelvic inlet and outlet radiographs redefined. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1947–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steppacher SD, Albers CE, Tannast M, Siebenrock KA. Plain radiographic evaluation of the hip. In: Nho S, Leunig M, Kelly B, Bedi A, Larson C, editors. Hip arthroscopy and hip joint preservation surgery. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 1–22.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lawrence DA, Menn K, Baumgaertner M, Haims AH. Acetabular fractures: anatomic and clinical considerations. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W425–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;445:181–5.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Letournel E. Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;151:81–106.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Büchler L, Schwab JM, Whitlock PW, Beck M, Tannast M. Intraoperative evaluation of acetabular morphology in hip arthroscopy comparing standard radiography versus fluoroscopy: a cadaver study. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:1030–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tannast M, Najibi S, Matta JM. Two to twenty-year survivorship of the hip in 810 patients with operatively treated acetabular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:1559–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huber-Wagner S, Lefering R, Qvick L-M, Körner M, Kay MV, Pfeifer K-J, Reiser M, Mutschler W, Kanz K-G, Working Group on Polytrauma of the German Trauma Society. Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet. 2009;373:1455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huber-Wagner S, Mand C, Ruchholtz S, Kühne CA, Holzapfel K, Kanz K-G, van Griensven M, Biberthaler P, Lefering R, Trauma Register DGU. Effect of the localisation of the CT scanner during trauma resuscitation on survival – a retrospective, multicentre study. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 3):S76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ohashi K, El-Khoury GY, Abu-Zahra KW, Berbaum KS. Interobserver agreement for letournel acetabular fracture classification with multidetector ct: are standard judet radiographs necessary? Radiology. 2006;241:386–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Collin D, Geijer M, Göthlin JH. Computed tomography compared to magnetic resonance imaging in occult or suspect hip fractures. A retrospective study in 44 patients. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:3932–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haubro M, Stougaard C, Torfing T, Overgaard S. Sensitivity and specificity of CT- and MRI-scanning in evaluation of occult fracture of the proximal femur. Injury. 2015;46:1557–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tannast M, Pleus F, Bonel H, Galloway H, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Magnetic resonance imaging in traumatic posterior hip dislocation. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:723–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leunig M, Beaulé PE, Ganz R. The concept of femoroacetabular impingement: current status and future perspectives. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:616–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmaranzer F, Todorski IAS, Lerch TD, Schwab J, Cullmann-Bastian J, Tannast M. Intra-articular lesions: imaging and surgical correlation. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2017;21:487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steppacher S, Schwab J, Siebenrock K, Tannast M. Actual management of femoroacetabular impingement. Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica. 2012;63:365–78.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lerch TD, Todorski IAS, Steppacher SD, Schmaranzer F, Werlen SF, Siebenrock KA, Tannast M. Prevalence of femoral and acetabular version abnormalities in patients with symptomatic hip disease: a controlled study of 538 hips. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46:122–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saied AM, Redant C, El-Batouty M, El-Lakkany MR, El-Adl WA, Anthonissen J, Verdonk R, Audenaert EA. Accuracy of magnetic resonance studies in the detection of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith TO, Hilton G, Toms AP, Donell ST, Hing CB. The diagnostic accuracy of acetabular labral tears using magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:863–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmaranzer F, Klauser A, Kogler M, Henninger B, Forstner T, Reichkendler M, Schmaranzer E. Improving visualization of the central compartment of the hip with direct MR arthrography under axial leg traction: a feasibility study. Acad Radiol. 2014;21:1240–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmaranzer F, Klauser A, Kogler M, Henninger B, Forstner T, Reichkendler M, Schmaranzer E. Diagnostic performance of direct traction MR arthrography of the hip: detection of chondral and labral lesions with arthroscopic comparison. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1721–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmaranzer F, Klauser A, Kogler M, Henninger B, Forstner T, Reichkendler M, Schmaranzer E. MR arthrography of the hip with and without leg traction: assessing the diagnostic performance in detection of ligamentum teres lesions with arthroscopic correlation. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:489–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmaranzer F, Lerch TD, Strasser U, Vavron P, Schmaranzer E, Tannast M. Usefulness of MR arthrography of the hip with and without leg traction in detection of intra-articular bodies. Acad Radiol. 2018.
  27. 27.
    Agten CA, Sutter R, Buck FM, Pfirrmann CWA. Hip imaging in athletes: sports imaging series. Radiology. 2016;280:351–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Naraghi A, White LM. Three-dimensional MRI of the musculoskeletal system. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:W283–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Schmaranzer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Till D. Lerch
    • 1
  • Inga A. S. Todorski
    • 1
  • Moritz Tannast
    • 1
  • Simon Steppacher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and TraumatologyInselspital, Bern University HospitalBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations