Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Joints 2017; 05(01): 021-026
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601411
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Postarthroscopy Imaging in Femoroacetabular Impingement: Persistent Pain May Be Due to an Insufficient Correction of Preoperative Abnormalities

Cosimo Tudisco
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
,
Salvatore Bisicchia
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
,
Sandro Tormenta
2   Department of Radiology, San Pietro Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
Amedeo Taglieri
3   Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Molecular Imaging, Interventional Radiology and Radiation Therapy, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
,
Ezio Fanucci
2   Department of Radiology, San Pietro Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 June 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of correction of abnormal radiographic parameters on postoperative pain in a group of patients treated arthroscopically for femoracetabular impingement (FAI).

Methods A retrospective study was performed on 23 patients affected by mixed-type FAI and treated arthroscopically. There were 11 males and 12 females with a mean age of 46.5 (range: 28–67) years. Center-edge (CE) and α angles were measured on preoperative and postoperative radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies and were correlated with persistent pain at follow-up.

Results The mean preoperative CE and α angles were 38.6 ± 5.2 and 67.3 ± 7.2 degrees, respectively. At follow-up, in the 17 pain-free patients, the mean pre- and postoperative CE angle were 38.1 ± 5.6 and 32.6 ± 4.8 degrees, respectively, whereas the mean pre- and postoperative α angles at MRI were 66.3 ± 7.9 and 47.9 ± 8.9 degrees, respectively. In six patients with persistent hip pain, the mean pre- and postoperative CE angles were 39.8 ± 3.6 and 35.8 ± 3.1 degrees, respectively, whereas the mean pre- and postoperative α angles were 70.0 ± 3.9 and 58.8 ± 2.6 degrees, respectively. Mean values of all the analyzed radiological parameters, except CE angle in patients with pain, improved significantly after surgery. On comparing patient groups, significantly lower postoperative α angles and lower CE angle were observed in patients without pain.

Conclusion In case of persistent pain after arthroscopic treatment of FAI, a new set of imaging studies must be performed because pain may be related to an insufficient correction of preoperative radiographic abnormalities.

Level of Evidence Level IV, retrospective case series.

Keywords

femoroacetabular impingement - hip arthroscopy - magnetic resonance imaging - hip pain
 

  • References

  • 1 Baker JF, Mulhall KJ. Femoro-acetabular impingement and hip pain with conventionally normal X-rays. Ir Med J 2010; 103 (06) 184-186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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 (07) 1012-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sink EL, Gralla J, Ryba A, Dayton M. Clinical presentation of femoroacetabular impingement in adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 2008; 28 (08) 806-811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Botser IB, Smith Jr TW, Nasser R, Domb BG. Open surgical dislocation versus arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a comparison of clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (02) 270-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Griffiths EJ, Khanduja V. Hip arthroscopy: evolution, current practice and future developments. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (06) 1115-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Imam S, Khanduja V. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of femoroacetabular impingement. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (10) 1427-1435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Philippon MJ, Schenker ML, Briggs KK, Kuppersmith DA, Maxwell RB, Stubbs AJ. Revision hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (11) 1918-1921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aprato A, Jayasekera N, Villar RN. Revision hip arthroscopic surgery: outcome at three years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (04) 932-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Heyworth BE, Shindle MK, Voos JE, Rudzki JR, Kelly BT. Radiologic and intraoperative findings in revision hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (12) 1295-1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Larson CM, Giveans MR. Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: early outcomes measures. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (05) 540-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Philippon MJ, Wolff AB, Briggs KK, Zehms CT, Kuppersmith DA. Acetabular rim reduction for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement correlates with preoperative and postoperative center-edge angle. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (06) 757-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chiron P, Espié A, Reina N, Cavaignac E, Molinier F, Laffosse JM. Surgery for femoroacetabular impingement using a minimally invasive anterolateral approach: analysis of 118 cases at 2.2-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98 (01) 30-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zingg PO, Ulbrich EJ, Buehler TC, Kalberer F, Poutawera VR, Dora C. Surgical hip dislocation versus hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: clinical and morphological short-term results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133 (01) 69-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 de Sa D, Urquhart N, Philippon M, Ye JE, Simunovic N, Ayeni OR. Alpha angle correction in femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (04) 812-821
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dietrich TJ, Dora C, Pfirrmann CW. Postoperative imaging in femoroacetabular impingement. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2013; 17 (03) 272-278
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (417) 112-120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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 (04) 556-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (02) 281-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ruelle M, Dubois JL. The protrusive malformation and its arthrosic complication. I. Radiological and clinical symptoms. Etiopathogenesis [in French]. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic 1962; 29: 476-489
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Van De Velde S, Fillman R, Yandow S. The aetiology of protrusio acetabuli. Literature review from 1824 to 2006. Acta Orthop Belg 2006; 72 (05) 524-529
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Aprato A, Jayasekera N, Villar R. Timing in hip arthroscopy: does surgical timing change clinical results?. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (11) 2231-2234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint: with special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1939; 58: 7-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81 (12) 1747-1770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (407) 241-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Aprato A, Jayasekera N, Villar RN. The accuracy of magnetic resonance arthrography in hip arthroscopic labral revision surgery. Hip Int 2013; 23 (01) 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Beaulé 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 (06) 1286-1292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Locher S, Werlen S, Leunig M, Ganz R. MR-Arthrography with radial sequences for visualization of early hip pathology not visible on plain radiographs [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2002; 140 (01) 52-57
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Siebenrock KA, Wahab KH, Werlen S, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. Abnormal extension of the femoral head epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (418) 54-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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 (03) 778-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Steppacher SD, Tannast M, Werlen S, Siebenrock KA. Femoral morphology differs between deficient and excessive acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466 (04) 782-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Dudda M, Albers C, Mamisch TC, Werlen S, Beck M. Do normal radiographs exclude asphericity of the femoral head-neck junction?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (03) 651-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Pozzi G, Stradiotti P, Parra CG, Zagra L, Sironi S, Zerbi A. Femoro-acetabular impingement: can indirect MR arthrography be considered a valid method to detect endoarticular damage? A preliminary study. Hip Int 2009; 19 (04) 386-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mintz DN, Hooper T, Connell D, Buly R, Padgett DE, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: detection of labral and chondral abnormalities using noncontrast imaging. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (04) 385-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Armfield DR, Towers JD, Robertson DD. Clinical evaluation of the hip: radiologic evaluation. Oper Tech Orthop 2005; 15: 182-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tsitskaris K, Sharif K, Meacock LM. , et al. The prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular morphology in young adults and its effect on functional hip scores. Hip Int 2012; 22 (01) 68-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 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 (445) 181-185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lohan DG, Seeger LL, Motamedi K, Hame S, Sayre J. Cam-type femoral-acetabular impingement: is the alpha angle the best MR arthrography has to offer?. Skeletal Radiol 2009; 38 (09) 855-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Nouh MR, Schweitzer ME, Rybak L, Cohen J. Femoroacetabular impingement: can the alpha angle be estimated?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190 (05) 1260-1262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Rothenfluh E, Zingg P, Dora C, Snedeker JG, Favre P. Influence of resection geometry on fracture risk in the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: a finite element study. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (09) 2002-2008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Mardones RM, 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. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (02) 273-279
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Brunner A, Horisberger M, Herzog RF. Evaluation of a computed tomography-based navigation system prototype for hip arthroscopy in the treatment of femoroacetabular cam impingement. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (04) 382-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar