Search

To evaluate the feasibility of 2D and 3D acetabular coverage assessments based on low-dose biplanar radiographs (BPR) in comparison with CT, and to demonstrate the influence of weight-bearing position (WBP) on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages. Fifty patients (21 females, 29 males) underwent standing BPR and supine CT of the pelvis. Using dedicated software, BPR-based calculations of anterior and posterior 2D coverages and anterior, posterior, and global 3D coverages were performed in standardized anterior pelvic plane (APP) and WBP. CT-based anterior and posterior 2D coverages and global 3D coverage was calculated in APP and compared with BPR-based data. Statistics included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Mean anterior 2D coverage was 21.2% (standard deviation, ± 7.4%) for BPR and 23.8% (± 8.4%) for CT (p = 0.226). Mean posterior 2D coverage was 54.2% (± 9.8%) for BPR and 61.7% (± 9.7%) for CT (p = 0.001). Mean global 3D coverage was 46.5% (± 3.0%) for BPR and 45.6% (± 3.6%) for CT (p = 0.215). The inter-method reliability between CT and BPR and inter-reader reliability for BPR-based measurements were very good for all measurement (all ICC > 0.8). Based on BPR, mean anterior and posterior 3D coverages were 20.5% and 26.0% in WBP and APP, while 25 patients increased anterior and 24 patients increased posterior 3D coverage from APP to WBP with a relative change of coverage of up to 11.9% and 10.0%, respectively. 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on BPR. The impact of standing position on acetabular coverage can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis. • 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on biplanar radiographs in comparison with CT. • The impact of standing position on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence, morphology, and clinical significance of a repeatedly observed yet not examined circumscript osseous defect at the anteroinferior aspect of the femoral head, termed femoral head defect.Materials and methodsRetrospective study with approval of the institutional review board. There was informed consent by all individuals. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) hip examinations of 970 individuals (age 15 to 55) were analyzed for femoral head defect. Patients with femoral head defect were matched for age and gender with patients without defect. Two readers independently assessed MRI images regarding presence, location, and morphology of the defect. MR images and radiographs were analyzed for findings of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Femoral torsion was measured. Independentttest and chi-square test were used for statistics.ResultsSixty-eight (7%) of 970 MRI examinations exhibited a femoral head defect in an anteroinferior location of the femoral head (29/400 men, 7.3%; 39/570 women, 6.8%;p = 0.8). The most frequent morphology of femoral head defect was type I, dent-like (34; 50%), followed by type II, crater-like (27; 40%), and III, cystic (7; 10%). Femoral head defect was slightly more common on the right hip (39 individuals; 57%) compared to left (29 individuals; 43%), non-significantly (p = 0.115). There was no association between FAI or its subtypes and the presence of femoral head defect (p = 0.890). Femoral antetorsion was reduced in patients with femoral head defect (12.9° ± 8.6) compared to patients without defect (15.2° ± 8.5), without statistical significance (p = 0.121).ConclusionThe femoral head defect is a common finding in MRI examinations of the hip and is situated in the anteroinferior location. There was no association with FAI yet a non-significant trend towards lower femoral antetorsion in patients with femoral head defects.

A common cause of hip pain and restricted range of hip motion in adolescents and young adults is femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). If left untreated, patients run the substantial risk of developing early-onset osteoarthritis of the hip. With the rise in awareness of FAI and ongoing evolution of hip-preserving surgery, imaging has gained a fundamental role in the postoperative assessment. While the majority of patients enjoy a positive outcome, a not unsubstantial number experience persistent or recurrent symptoms after surgery. Routine postoperative follow-up includes conventional radiographs. In patients with postoperative complaints additional imaging in the form of MR arthrography of the hip is indicated which allows the evaluation of the surgical osseous correction as well as structures such as the labrum and cartilage and is well suited for the detection of most postoperative complications.