The Lisbon Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement imaging-part 2: general issues, parameters, and reporting.
Diagnostic imaging
Femoroacetabular impingement
Guideline
Hip
Orthopaedics
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
12
05
2020
accepted:
15
10
2020
revised:
13
09
2020
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
7
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Imaging assessment for the clinical management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is controversial because of a paucity of evidence-based guidance and notable variability among practitioners. Hence, expert consensus is needed because standardised imaging assessment is critical for clinical practice and research. We aimed to establish expert-based statements on FAI imaging by using formal methods of consensus building. The Delphi method was used to formally derive consensus among 30 panel members from 13 countries. Forty-four questions were agreed upon, and relevant seminal literature was circulated and classified in major topics to produce answering statements. The level of evidence was noted for all statements, and panel members were asked to score their level of agreement (0-10). This is the second part of a three-part consensus series and focuses on 'General issues' and 'Parameters and reporting'. Forty-seven statements were generated and group consensus was reached for 45. Twenty-five statements pertaining to 'General issues' (9 addressing diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and postoperative imaging) and 'Parameters and reporting' (16 addressing femoral/acetabular parameters) were produced. The available evidence was reviewed critically, recommended criteria for diagnostic imaging highlighted, and the roles/values of different imaging parameters assessed. Radiographic evaluation (AP pelvis and a Dunn 45° view) is the cornerstone of hip-imaging assessment and the minimum imaging study that should be performed when evaluating adult patients for FAI. In most cases, cross-sectional imaging is warranted because MRI is the 'gold standard' imaging modality for the comprehensive evaluation, differential diagnosis assessment, and FAI surgical planning. • Diagnostic imaging for FAI is not standardised due to scarce evidence-based guidance on which imaging modalities and diagnostic criteria/parameters should be used. • Radiographic evaluation is the cornerstone of hip assessment and the minimum study that should be performed when assessing suspected FAI. Cross-sectional imaging is justified in most cases because MRI is the 'gold standard' modality for comprehensive FAI evaluation. • For acetabular morphology, coverage (Wiberg's angle and acetabular index) and version (crossover, posterior wall, and ischial spine signs) should be assessed routinely. On the femoral side, the head-neck junction morphology (α° and offset), neck morphology (NSA), and torsion should be assessed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33411052
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07432-1
pii: 10.1007/s00330-020-07432-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4634-4651Références
Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA (2003) Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000096804.78689.c2
Nepple JJ, Prather H, Trousdale RT et al (2013) Clinical diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(Suppl 1):S16–S19. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-21-07-S16
doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-07-S16
pubmed: 23818186
Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, O'Donnell J et al (2016) The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 50:1169–1176. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096743
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096743
pubmed: 27629403
Mascarenhas VV, Rego PA, Dantas P et al (2016) Imaging prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in symptomatic patients, athletes, and asymptomatic individuals: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 85:73–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.016
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.016
pubmed: 26724652
Agricola R, Heijboer MP, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Verhaar JA, Weinans H, Waarsing JH (2013) Cam impingement causes osteoarthritis of the hip: a nationwide prospective cohort study (CHECK). Ann Rheum Dis 72:918–923. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201643
Mascarenhas VV, Rego PA, Dantas P et al (2018) Hip shape is symmetric, non-dependent on limb dominance and gender-specific: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. A 3D CT analysis in asymptomatic subjects. Eur Radiol 28:1609–1624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5072-9
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5072-9
pubmed: 29110047
Palmer WE (2010) Femoroacetabular impingement: caution is warranted in making imaging-based assumptions and diagnoses. Radiology 257:4–7. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091298
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091298
pubmed: 20851933
Mascarenhas VV, Ayeni OR, Egund N et al (2019) Imaging methodology for hip preservation: techniques, parameters, and thresholds. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 23:197–226. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1688714
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1688714
pubmed: 31163499
Pfirrmann CWA, Mengiardi B, Dora C, Kalberer F, Zanetti M, Hodler J (2006) Cam and Pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology 240:778–785. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2403050767
Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE (2007) Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1540–1552. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0921
doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.0921
pubmed: 17515374
Dudda M, Albers C, Mamisch TC, Werlen S, Beck M (2008) Do normal radiographs exclude asphericity of the femoral head-neck junction? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:651–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0617-5
Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J (2002) The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 84:556–560
Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CWA (2012) How useful is the alpha angle for discriminating between symptomatic patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and asymptomatic volunteers? Radiology 264:514–521. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112479
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12112479
pubmed: 22653190
Lerch TD, Todorski IAS, Steppacher SD et al (2018) Prevalence of femoral and acetabular version abnormalities in patients with symptomatic hip disease: a controlled study of 538 hips. Am J Sports Med 46:122–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517726983
doi: 10.1177/0363546517726983
pubmed: 28937786
Zaltz I, Kelly BT, Hetsroni I, Bedi A (2012) The crossover sign overestimates acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2463–2470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2689-5
doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2689-5
Larson CM, Moreau-Gaudry A, Kelly BT et al (2014) Are normal hips being labeled as pathologic? A CT-based method for defining normal acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1247–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4055-2
doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4055-2
Wassilew GI, Heller MO, Diederichs G, Janz V, Wenzl M, Perka C (2012) Standardized AP radiographs do not provide reliable diagnostic measures for the assessment of acetabular retroversion. J Orthop Res 30:1369–1376. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22086
Kassarjian A (2019) Hip hype: FAI syndrome, Amara’s law, and the hype cycle. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 23(3):252–256. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677695
Mascarenhas VV, Castro MO, Rego PA et al (2020) The Lisbon agreement on femoroacetabular impingement imaging-part 1: overview. Eur Radiol 30:5281–5297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06822-9
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06822-9
pubmed: 32405754
Steurer J (2011) The Delphi method: an efficient procedure to generate knowledge. Skeletal Radiol 40:959–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1145-z
doi: 10.1007/s00256-011-1145-z
pubmed: 21667147
McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP (2016) How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharmacol 38:655–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
Sutter R, Pfirrmann CWA (2017) Update on femoroacetabular impingement: what is new, and how should we assess it? Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 21:518–528. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1606141
doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1606141
pubmed: 29025182
Atkins PR, Shin Y, Agrawal P et al (2018) Which two-dimensional radiographic measurements of cam femoroacetabular impingement best describe the three-dimensional shape of the proximal femur? Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(1):242–253. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000462
Mascarenhas VV, Rego P, Dantas P, Gaspar A, Soldado F, Consciência JG (2017) Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects. Eur Radiol 27:2011–2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4530-0
Domayer SE, Ziebarth K, Chan J, Bixby S, Mamisch TC, Kim YJ (2011) Femoroacetabular cam-type impingement: diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of radiographic views compared to radial MRI. Eur J Radiol 80:805–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.016
Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M (2006) Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 445:181–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000201168.72388.24
Saito M, Tsukada S, Yoshida K, Okada Y, Tasaki A (2016) Correlation of alpha angle between various radiographic projections and radial magnetic resonance imaging for cam deformity in femoral head–neck junction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4046-9
Agricola R, Waarsing JH, Thomas GE et al (2014) Cam impingement: defining the presence of a cam deformity by the alpha angle: data from the CHECK cohort and Chingford cohort. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22:218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.007
Golfam M, Di Primio LA, Beaulé PE, Hack K, Schweitzer ME (2017) Alpha angle measurements in healthy adult volunteers vary depending on the MRI plane acquisition used. Am J Sports Med 45:620–626. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0921
Mascarenhas VV, Rego PA, Dantas P et al (2018) Can we discriminate symptomatic hip patients from asymptomatic volunteers based on anatomic predictors? A 3-dimensional magnetic resonance study on cam, Pincer, and spinopelvic parameters. Am J Sports Med 46:3097–3110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518800825
doi: 10.1177/0363546518800825
pubmed: 30379583
Beaulé PE, Grammatopoulos G, Speirs A et al (2018) Unravelling the hip pistol grip / CAM deformity: origins to joint degeneration. J Orthop Res 36(12):3125–3135. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24137
Eijer H, Leunig M, Mahomed N, Ganz R (2001) Cross-table lateral radiographs for screening of anterior femoral head-neck offset in patients with femoro-acetabular impingement. Hip Int 11:37–41
doi: 10.1177/112070000101100104
Fraitzl CR, Kappe T, Pennekamp F, Reichel H, Billich C (2012) Femoral head-neck offset measurements in 339 subjects: distribution and implications for femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:1212–1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2042-2
Ehrmann C, Rosskopf AB, Pfirrmann CWA, Sutter R (2015) Beyond the alpha angle: alternative measurements for quantifying cam-type deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. J Magn Reson Imaging 42(4):1024–1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24861
Pollard TCB, Villar RN, Norton MR et al (2010) Femoroacetabular impingement and classification of the cam deformity: the reference interval in normal hips. Acta Orthop 81:134–141. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453671003619011
doi: 10.3109/17453671003619011
pubmed: 20175650
pmcid: 2856218
Kang ACL, Gooding AJ, Coates MH, Goh TD, Armour P, Rietveld J (2010) Computed tomography assessment of hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 38:1160–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509358320
Tannast M, Fritsch S, Zheng G, Siebenrock KA, Steppacher SD (2014) Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(4):1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3936-8
Rhee C, Le Francois T, Byrd JWT, Glazebrook M, Wong I (2017) Radiographic diagnosis of Pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med 5:232596711770830. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200301000-00001
Frank JM, Harris JD, Erickson BJ et al (2015) Prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement imaging findings in asymptomatic volunteers: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 31:1199–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.042
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.042
pubmed: 25636988
Krishnamoorthy VP, Beck EC, Kunze KN et al (2019) Radiographic prevalence of sacroiliac joint abnormalities and clinical outcomes in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Arthroscopy 35:2598–2605.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.03.030
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.03.030
pubmed: 31500745
Krishnamoorthy VP, Kunze KN, Beck EC et al (2019) Radiographic prevalence of symphysis pubis abnormalities and clinical outcomes in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Am J Sports Med 47:1467–1472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519837203
doi: 10.1177/0363546519837203
pubmed: 30995415
Tibor LM, Sekiya JK (2008) Differential diagnosis of pain around the hip joint. Arthroscopy 24:1407–1421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2008.06.019
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.06.019
pubmed: 19038713
Khan W, Khan M, Alradwan H, Williams R, Simunovic N, Ayeni OR (2015) Utility of intra-articular hip injections for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med 3(9):2325967115601030. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967115601030
Li AE, Jawetz ST, Greditzer HG IV, Burge AJ, Nawabi DH, Potter HG (2016) MRI evaluation of femoroacetabular impingement after hip preservation surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:392–400. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15427
Dietrich TJ, Grob K, Kim C-HO (2017) Postoperative imaging after impingement surgery. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 21:529–538. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1606131
doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1606131
pubmed: 29025183
Hanke MS, Steppacher SD, Anwander H, Werlen S, Siebenrock KA, Tannast M (2016) What MRI findings predict failure 10 years after surgery for femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5040-8
Boese CK, Dargel J, Oppermann J et al (2015) The femoral neck-shaft angle on plain radiographs: a systematic review. Skeletal Radiol 45:19–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2236-z
doi: 10.1007/s00256-015-2236-z
pubmed: 26305058
Boese CK, Jostmeier J, Oppermann J et al (2015) The neck shaft angle: CT reference values of 800 adult hips. Skeletal Radiol 45:455–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2314-2
doi: 10.1007/s00256-015-2314-2
pubmed: 26695396
Ganz R, Leunig M, Leunig-Ganz K, Harris WH (2008) The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:264–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0060-z
doi: 10.1007/s11999-007-0060-z
pubmed: 18196405
Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CWA (2012) Femoral antetorsion: comparing asymptomatic volunteers and patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology 263:475–483. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111903
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111903
pubmed: 22403167
Tomczak RJ, Guenther KP, Rieber A, Mergo P, Ros PR, Brambs HJ (1997) MR imaging measurement of the femoral antetorsional angle as a new technique: comparison with CT in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:791–794. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.3.9057536
Rosskopf AB, Ramseier LE, Sutter R, Pfirrmann CWA, Buck FM (2014) Femoral and tibial torsion measurement in children and adolescents: comparison of 3D models based on low-dose biplanar radiography and low-dose CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:W285–W291. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11103
Rosskopf AB, Buck FM, Pfirrmann CWA, Ramseier LE (2017) Femoral and tibial torsion measurements in children and adolescents: comparison of MRI and 3D models based on low-dose biplanar radiographs. Skeletal Radiol 46:469–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2569-x
doi: 10.1007/s00256-017-2569-x
pubmed: 28154901
Hartel MJ, Petersik A, Schmidt A et al (2016) Determination of femoral neck angle and torsion angle utilizing a novel three-dimensional modeling and analytical technology based on CT datasets. PLoS One 11:e0149480. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149480.s002
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149480.s002
pubmed: 26933877
Kaiser P, Attal R, Kammerer M et al (2016) Significant differences in femoral torsion values depending on the CT measurement technique. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:1259–1264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2536-3
doi: 10.1007/s00402-016-2536-3
pubmed: 27501703
pmcid: 4990621
Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CWA (2015) Assessment of femoral antetorsion with MRI: comparison of oblique measurements to standard transverse measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:130–135. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13617
doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13617
pubmed: 26102391
Schmaranzer F, Lerch TD, Siebenrock KA, Tannast M, Steppacher SD (2019) Differences in femoral torsion among various measurement methods increase in hips with excessive femoral torsion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(5):1073–1083. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000610
Stelzeneder D, Hingsammer A, Bixby SD, Kim Y-J (2012) Can radiographic morphometric parameters for the hip be assessed on MRI? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:989–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2654-3
doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2654-3
pubmed: 23100186
Air ME, Harrison JR, Nguyen JT, Kelly BT, Bogner EA, Moley PJ (2019) Correlation of measurements of the prearthritic hip between plain radiography and computed tomography. PM R 11:158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.06.001
Jackson TJ, Estess AA, Adamson GJ (2016) Supine and standing AP pelvis radiographs in the evaluation of Pincer femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1692–1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4766-7
doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4766-7
pubmed: 26913511
Werner CML, Ramseier LE, Ruckstuhl T et al (2012) Normal values of Wiberg’s lateral center-edge angle and Lequesne’s acetabular index–a coxometric update. Skeletal Radiol 41(10):1273–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-012-1420-7
Wylie JD, Kapron AL, Peters CL, Aoki SK, Maak TG (2017) Relationship between the lateral center-edge angle and 3-dimensional acetabular coverage. Orthop J Sports Med 5:2325967117700589. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117700589
Siebenrock KA, Kistler L, Schwab JM, Büchler L, Tannast M (2012) The acetabular wall index for assessing anteroposterior femoral head coverage in symptomatic patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3355–3360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2477-2
Tannast M, Hanke MS, Zheng G, Steppacher SD, Siebenrock KA (2015) What are the radiographic reference values for acetabular under- and overcoverage? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4038-3
Nepple JJ (2013) Coxa profunda is not a useful radiographic parameter for diagnosing Pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:417. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01664
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01664
pubmed: 23467864
Mittal A, Bomar JD, Jeffords ME, Huang M-T, Wenger DR, Upasani VV (2016) Defining the lateral edge of the femoroacetabular articulation: correlation analysis between radiographs and computed tomography. J Child Orthop 10:365–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-016-0768-y
Wiberg G (1939) Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint: with special reference to the complication of osteo-arthritis. Karolinska Institutet, Orthopedic Clinic
Laborie LB, Engesæter IØ, Lehmann TG et al (2013) Radiographic measurements of hip dysplasia at skeletal maturity—new reference intervals based on 2,038 19-year-old Norwegians. Skeletal Radiol 42:925–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2002.tb02857.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2002.tb02857.x
pubmed: 23354528
Siebenrock KA, Schaller C, Tannast M, Keel M, Büchler L (2014) Anteverting periacetabular osteotomy for symptomatic acetabular retroversion: results at ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1785–1792. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00842
Hartigan DE, Perets I, Walsh JP, Close MR, Domb BG (2016) Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy in radiographically diagnosed retroverted acetabula. Am J Sports Med 44:2531–2536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516652615
Wall PDH, Brown JS, Parsons N, Buchbinder R, Costa ML, Griffin D (2014) Surgery for treating hip impingement (femoroacetabular impingement) (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD010796. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010796.pub2
Bensler S, Dietrich TJ, Zubler V, Pfirrmann CWA, Sutter R (2019) Pincer-type MRI morphology seen in over a third of asymptomatic healthy volunteers without femoroacetabular impingement. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:1296–1303. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26297