The Lisbon Agreement on Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging-part 3: imaging techniques.
Delphi technique
Femoroacetabular impingement
Guidelines
Hip
Multimodal Imaging
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:
13
05
2020
accepted:
11
11
2020
revised:
19
08
2020
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
7
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Imaging diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) remains controversial due to a lack of high-level evidence, leading to significant variability in patient management. Optimizing protocols and technical details is essential in FAI imaging, although challenging in clinical practice. The purpose of this agreement is to establish expert-based statements on FAI imaging, using formal consensus techniques driven by relevant literature review. Recommendations on the selection and use of imaging techniques for FAI assessment, as well as guidance on relevant radiographic and MRI classifications, are provided. The Delphi method was used to assess agreement and derive consensus among 30 panel members (musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopedic surgeons). Forty-four questions were agreed on and classified into five major topics and recent relevant literature was circulated, in order to produce answering statements. The level of evidence was assessed for all statements and panel members scored their level of agreement with each statement during 4 Delphi rounds. Either "group consensus," "group agreement," or "no agreement" was achieved. Forty-seven statements were generated and group consensus was reached for 45. Twenty-two statements pertaining to "Imaging techniques" were generated. Eight statements on "Radiographic assessment" and 12 statements on "MRI evaluation" gained consensus. No agreement was reached for the 2 "Ultrasound" related statements. The first international consensus on FAI imaging was developed. Researchers and clinicians working with FAI and hip-related pain may use these recommendations to guide, develop, and implement comprehensive, evidence-based imaging protocols and classifications. • Radiographic evaluation is recommended for the initial assessment of FAI, while MRI with a dedicated protocol is the gold standard imaging technique for the comprehensive evaluation of this condition. • The MRI protocol for FAI evaluation should include unilateral small FOV with radial imaging, femoral torsion assessment, and a fluid sensitive sequence covering the whole pelvis. • The definite role of other imaging methods in FAI, such as ultrasound or CT, is still not well defined.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33411053
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07501-5
pii: 10.1007/s00330-020-07501-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4652-4668Références
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 417:112–120
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(19):1169–1176
Agricola R, Heijboer MP, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Verhaar JAN, Weinans H, Waarsing JH (2013) Cam impingement causes osteoarthritis of the hip: a nationwide prospective cohort study (CHECK). Ann Rheum Dis 72(6):918–923
pubmed: 22730371
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
Kassarjian A (2019) Hip hype: FAI syndrome, Amara’s law, and the hype cycle. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 23(3):252–256
pubmed: 30699445
Mascarenhas VV, Ayeni OR, Egund N et al (2019) Imaging methodology for hip preservation: techniques, parameters, and thresholds. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 23(03):197–226
Saied AM, Redant C, El-Batouty M et al (2017) Accuracy of magnetic resonance studies in the detection of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18(1):83
Smith TO, Simpson M, Ejindu V, Hing CB (2012) The diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and computer tomography in the detection of chondral lesions of the hip. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23(3):335–344
pubmed: 23412284
Sutter R, Zubler V, Hoffmann A et al (2014) Hip MRI: how useful is intraarticular contrast material for evaluating surgically proven lesions of the labrum and articular cartilage? AJR Am J Roentgenol 202(1):160–169
Czerny C, Hofmann S, Neuhold A et al (1996) Lesions of the acetabular labrum: accuracy of MR imaging and MR arthrography in detection and staging. Radiology 200(1):225–230
Schmaranzer F, Klauser A, Kogler M et al (2015) Diagnostic performance of direct traction MR arthrography of the hip: detection of chondral and labral lesions with arthroscopic comparison. Eur Radiol 25(6):1721–1730
Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Carlisle JC, Patterson DC (2013) Joint space predicts THA After hip arthroscopy in patients 50 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(8):2492–2496
pubmed: 23292888
Skendzel JG, Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Goljan P (2014) The effect of joint space on midterm outcomes after arthroscopic hip surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 42(5):1127–1133
pubmed: 24607652
Valera M, Ibañez N, Sancho R, Tey M (2016) Reliability of Tönnis classification in early hip arthritis: a useless reference for hip-preserving surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(1):27–33
pubmed: 26566638
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)
Troelsen A, Jacobsen S, Rømer L, Søballe K (2008) Weightbearing anteroposterior pelvic radiographs are recommended in DDH assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(4):813–819
pubmed: 18335298
Pullen WM, Henebry A, Gaskill T (2014) Variability of acetabular coverage between Supine and weightbearing pelvic radiographs. Am J Sports Med 42(11):2643–2648
pubmed: 25214530
Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Peterlein C-D, Tibesku CO, Weinstein SL (2008) Comparison of pelvic radiographs in weightbearing and supine positions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(4):809–812
pubmed: 18288555
Ross JR, Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Bedi A (2014) Effect of changes in pelvic tilt on range of motion to impingement and radiographic parameters of acetabular morphologic characteristics. Am J Sports Med 42(10):2402–2409
pubmed: 25060073
Ross JR, Tannenbaum EP, Nepple JJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Bedi A (2015) Functional acetabular orientation varies between supine and standing radiographs: Implications for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(4):1267–1273
pubmed: 25560956
Tannast M, Fritsch S, Zheng G, Siebenrock KA, Steppacher SD (2015) Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(4):1255–1266
pubmed: 25231153
Kosuge D, Cordier T, Solomon LB, Howie DW (2014) Dilemmas in imaging for peri-acetabular osteotomy: the influence of patient position and imaging technique on the radiological features of hip dysplasia. Bone Joint J 96-B(9):1155–1160
pubmed: 25183583
Conrozier T, Lequesne MG, Tron AM, Mathieu P, Berdah L, Vignon E (1997) The effects of position on the radiographic joint space in osteoarthritis of the hip. Osteoarthr Cartil 5(1):17–22
Lane NE, Hochberg MC, Nevitt MC et al (2015) OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: design and conduct of clinical trials for hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 23(5):761–771
Sutter R, Pfirrmann CWA (2017) Update on Femoroacetabular Impingement: What Is New, and How Should We Assess It? Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 21(5):518–528
pubmed: 29025182
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(5):2011–2023
pubmed: 27578045
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(13):3097–3110
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(3):805–810
pubmed: 21074343
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
pubmed: 16456309
ANCHOR Study Group, Nepple JJ, Martel JM, Kim Y-J, Zaltz I, Clohisy JC (2012) Do plain radiographs correlate with CT for imaging of Cam-type femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(12):3313–3320
Atkins PR, Shin Y, Agrawal P et al (2019) 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
Ng KCG, Lamontagne M, Jeffers JRT, Grammatopoulos G, Beaulé PE (2018) Anatomic predictors of sagittal hip and pelvic motions in patients with a Cam deformity. Am J Sports Med 46(6):1331–1342
pubmed: 29517923
Grammatopoulos G, Speirs AD, Ng KCG et al (2018) Acetabular and spino-pelvic morphologies are different in subjects with symptomatic cam femoro-acetabular impingement. J Orthop Res 36(7):1840–1848
Rivière C, Lazennec JY, Van Der Straeten C, Auvinet E, Cobb J, Muirhead-Allwood S (2017) The influence of spine-hip relations on total hip replacement: a systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103(4):559–568
pubmed: 28373138
Altman RD, Bloch DA, Dougados M et al (2004) Measurement of structural progression in osteoarthritis of the hip: the Barcelona consensus group. Osteoarthr Cartil 12(7):515–524
Auleley GR, Rousselin B, Ayral X, Edouard-Noel R, Dougados M, Ravaud P (1998) Osteoarthritis of the hip: agreement between joint space width measurements on standing and supine conventional radiographs. Ann Rheum Dis 57(9):519–523
pubmed: 9849309
pmcid: 1752744
Conrozier T, Lequesne M, Favret H et al (2001) Measurement of the radiological hip joint space width. An evaluation of various methods of measurement. Osteoarthr Cartil 9(3):281–286
Maheu E, Cadet C, Marty M et al (2005) Reproducibility and sensitivity to change of various methods to measure joint space width in osteoarthritis of the hip: a double reading of three different radiographic views taken with a three-year interval. Arthritis Res Ther 7(6):R1375–R1385
Croft P, Cooper C, Wickham C, Coggon D (1990) Defining osteoarthritis of the hip for epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 132(3):514–522
pubmed: 2389755
Altman RD, Gold GE (2007) Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteoarthr Cartil 15:A1–A56
Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502
pubmed: 13498604
pmcid: 1006995
Nepple JJ, Martell JM, Kim Y-J et al (2014) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the radiographic analysis of femoroacetabular impingement and dysplasia using computer-assisted measurements. Am J Sports Med 42(10):2393–2401
Gossec L, Jordan JM, Lam M-A et al (2009) Comparative evaluation of three semi-quantitative radiographic grading techniques for hip osteoarthritis in terms of validity and reproducibility in 1404 radiographs: report of the OARSI-OMERACT Task Force. Osteoarthr Cartil 17(2):182–187
Spector TD, Cooper C (1993) Radiographic assessment of osteoarthritis in population studies: whither Kellgren and Lawrence? Osteoarthr Cartil 1(4):203–206
Schiphof D, Boers M, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA (2008) Differences in descriptions of Kellgren and Lawrence grades of knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 67(7):1034–1036
pubmed: 18198197
Nepple JJ, Prather H, Trousdale RT et al (2013) Clinical diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(Suppl 1):S16–S19
Ayeni OR, Wong I, Chien T, Musahl V, Kelly BT, Bhandari M (2012) Surgical indications for arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy 28(8):1170–1179
pubmed: 22534069
Crespo-Rodríguez AM, De Lucas-Villarrubia JC, Pastrana-Ledesma M, Hualde-Juvera A, Méndez-Alonso S, Padron M (2017) The diagnostic performance of non-contrast 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (3-T MRI) versus 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance arthrography (1.5-T MRA) in femoro-acetabular impingement. Eur J Radiol 88:109–116
pubmed: 28189195
Smith TO, Hilton G, Toms AP, Donell ST, Hing CB (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of acetabular labral tears using magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 21(4):863–874
pubmed: 20859632
Llopis E, Cerezal L, Kassarjian A, Higueras V, Fernandez E (2008) Direct MR arthrography of the hip with leg traction: feasibility for assessing articular cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(4):1124–1128
pubmed: 18356464
Samim M, Eftekhary N, Vigdorchik JM, Elbuluk A, Davidovitch R, Youm T et al (2019) 3D-MRI versus 3D-CT in the evaluation of osseous anatomy in femoroacetabular impingement using Dixon 3D FLASH sequence. Skeletal Radiol 48(3):429–436
pubmed: 30182297
Mascarenhas VV, Caetano A (2018) Imaging the young adult hip in the future. Ann Joint 3(5):47–47
Heyworth BE, Dolan MM, Nguyen JT, Chen NC, Kelly BT (2012) Preoperative Three-dimensional CT Predicts Intraoperative Findings in Hip Arthroscopy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(7):1950–1957
pubmed: 22528376
Mascarenhas VV, Rego PA, Dantas P, Castro M, Jans L, Marques RM 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(4):1609–1624
pubmed: 29110047
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(3):651–659
pubmed: 19023635
Saito M, Tsukada S, Yoshida K, Okada Y, Tasaki A (2017) 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 25(1):77–83
pubmed: 26878850
Klenke FM, Hoffmann DB, Cross BJ, Siebenrock KA (2015) Validation of a standardized mapping system of the hip joint for radial MRA sequencing. Skeletal Radiol 44(3):339–343
pubmed: 25307050
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(3):778–785
pubmed: 16857978
Yoon LS, Palmer WE, Kassarjian A (2007) Evaluation of radial-sequence imaging in detecting acetabular labral tears at hip MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol 36(11):1029–1033
pubmed: 17712555
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(1):130–135
pubmed: 26102391
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(1):122–134
Groh MM, Herrera J (2009) A comprehensive review of hip labral tears. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2(2):105–117
pubmed: 19468871
pmcid: 2697339
Schmaranzer F, Todorski IAS, Lerch TD, Schwab J, Cullmann-Bastian J, Tannast M (2017) Intra-articular lesions: imaging and surgical correlation. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 21(5):487–506
pubmed: 29025180
Lee AJJ, Armour P, Thind D, Coates MH, Kang ACL (2015) The prevalence of acetabular labral tears and associated pathology in a young asymptomatic population. Bone Joint J 97-B(5):623–627
pubmed: 25922455
Tresch F, Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CWA, Sutter R (2017) Hip MRI: prevalence of articular cartilage defects and labral tears in asymptomatic volunteers. A comparison with a matched population of patients with femoroacetabular impingement. J Magn Reson Imaging 46(2):440–451
pubmed: 27981665
Hanke MS, Steppacher SD, Anwander H, Werlen S, Siebenrock KA, Tannast M (2017) What MRI findings predict failure 10 years after surgery for femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(4):1192–1120
pubmed: 27580735
Lund B, Mygind-Klavsen B, Grønbech Nielsen T et al (2017) Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR): the outcome of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). J Hip Preserv Surg 4(2):170–177
Nakano N, Gohal C, Duong A, Ayeni OR, Khanduja V (2018) Outcomes of cartilage repair techniques for chondral injury in the hip-a systematic review. Int Orthop 42(10):2309–2322
pubmed: 29536127
Zaltz I, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Leunig M, Bedi A (2014) Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: what are the limits of hip arthroscopy? Arthroscopy 30(1):99–110
pubmed: 24384276
Hartigan DE, Perets I, Yuen LC, Domb BG (2017) Results of hip arthroscopy in patients with MRI diagnosis of subchondral cysts—a case series. J Hip Preserv Surg 4(4):324–331
pubmed: 29250341
pmcid: 5721372
Krych AJ, King AH, Berardelli RL, Sousa PL, Levy BA (2016) Is subchondral acetabular edema or cystic change on mri a contraindication for hip arthroscopy in patients With femoroacetabular impingement? Am J Sports Med 44(2):454–459
pubmed: 26620297
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(9):2598–2605.e1