Prevalence of Radiographic Findings Thought to Be Associated with Femoroacetabular Impingement in a Population-based Cohort of 2081 Healthy Young Adults
Abstract
Overall, radiographic features suggestive of femoroacetabular impingement, both cam and pincer type, are quite common in a population of healthy young adults, especially in males, with a high degree of coexistence among most findings.
Purpose
To report the prevalence of qualitative radiographic findings for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and associations among them and to characterize the inter- and intraobserver variability of these interpretations.
Materials and Methods
This study is part of an institutional review board–approved population-based prospective follow-up of 2081 of 4006 (participation rate, 51.9%) young adults (874 [42.0%] male participants, 1207 [58.0%] female participants; mean age, 18.6 years) who took part in a randomized hip trial on developmental dysplasia of the hip. All participants gave informed consent. Two pelvic radiographs were obtained. Pistol-grip deformity, focal femoral neck prominence, and flattening of the lateral head, all suggestive of cam-type impingement, and the posterior wall sign, excessive acetabular coverage, and crossover sign, all suggestive of pincer-type impingement, were assessed subjectively by an experienced radiologist. To assess inter- and intraobserver agreement, images from 350 examinations were read independently twice by two observers.
Results
Cam-type deformities were seen in 868 male and 1192 female participants, respectively, as follows: pistol-grip deformity, 187 (21.5%) and 39 (3.3%); focal femoral neck prominence, 89 (10.3%) and 31 (2.6%); and flattening of the lateral femoral head, 125 (14.4%) and 74 (6.2%). Pincer-type deformities were seen in the same numbers of male and female participants, respectively, as follows: posterior wall sign, 203 (23.4%) and 131 (11.0%); and excessive acetabular coverage, 127 (14.6%) and 58 (4.9%) (all P < .001, according to sex distribution). The crossover sign was seen in 446 (51.4%) and 542 (45.5%) of the male and female participants, respectively (P = .004). There was a high degree of coexistence (odds ratio [OR] > 2) among most FAI findings. Interobserver agreement was good to very good (κ = 0.74–0.84) in rating cam- and pincer-type findings. Intraobserver agreement was moderate or good (κ = 0.49–0.80) for all findings for both observers.
Conclusion
Overall, radiographic FAI findings are quite common in a population of healthy young adults, especially in males, with a high degree of coexistence among most findings (OR > 2).
© RSNA, 2011
References
- 1 . Predictors of progression of osteoarthritis in femoroacetabular impingement: a radiological study with a minimum of ten years follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91(2):162–169.
- 2 . Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;417:112–120.
- 3 . The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip: an integrated mechanical concept. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466(2):264–272.
- 4 . Femoroacetabular impingement: a common cause of hip complaints leading to arthrosis. [in German]. Unfallchirurg 2005;108(1):9–10, 12–17.
- 5 . Histopathologic features of the acetabular labrum in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;(429):262–271.
- 6 . Surgical dislocation of the adult hip a technique with full access to the femoral head and acetabulum without the risk of avascular necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83(8):1119–1124.
- 7 . Clinical presentation of patients with tears of the acetabular labrum. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88(7):1448–1457.
- 8 . Treatment of femoro-acetabular impingement: preliminary results of labral refixation—surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89(suppl 2 pt 1):36–53.
- 9 . Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know [in Spanish]. Radiologia 2008;50(4):271–284.
- 10 . Fibrocystic changes at anterosuperior femoral neck: prevalence in hips with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology 2005;236(1):237–246.
- 11 . Herniation pit of the femoral neck. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982;138(6):1115–1121.
- 12 . Ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in the neonate: the effect on treatment rate and prevalence of late cases. Pediatrics 1994;94(1):47–52.
- 13 . Normal values of the hip joint for the evaluation of x-rays in children and adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976;(119):39–47.
- 14 . Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect: a MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83(2):171–176.
- 15 . The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84(4):556–560.
- 16 . Unrecognized childhood hip disease: a major cause of idiopathic osteoarthitis of the hip. In: The hip. Proceedings of the third meeting of the Hip Society. St Louis, Mo: Mosby, 1975; 212–218.
- 17 . Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs to assess acetabular retroversion: high validity of the “cross-over-sign.” J Orthop Res 2007;25(6):758–765.
- 18 . Femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007;15(9):561–570.
- 19 . Retroversion of the acetabulum: a cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81(2):281–288.
- 20 . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159–174.
- 21 . Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;(407):241–248.
- 22 . 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(7):1012–1018.
- 23 . Prevalence of malformations of the hip joint and their relationship to sex, groin pain, and risk of osteoarthritis: a population-based survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92(5):1162–1169.
- 24 . Prevalence of cam-type deformity on hip magnetic resonance imaging in young males: a cross-sectional study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010;62(9):1319–1327.
- 25 . A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90(Suppl 4):47–66.
- 26 . Acetabular retroversion is associated with osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;417:263–269.
- 27 . Estimation of pelvic tilt on anteroposterior x-rays: a comparison of six parameters. Skeletal Radiol 2006;35(3):149–155.
- 28 . Tilt and rotation correction of acetabular version on pelvic radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;438:182–190.
- 29 . Ischial spine projection into the pelvis: a new sign for acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466(3):677–683.
- 30 . The ischial spine sign: does pelvic tilt and rotation matter? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(3):769–774.
- 31 . Cams and pincer impingement are distinct, not mixed: the acetabular pathomorphology of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(8):2143–2151.
- 32 . Herniation pits in the femoral neck: a radiographic indicator of femoroacetabular impingement? Skeletal Radiol 2011;40(2):167–172.
- 33 . Reliability of radiographic signs for acetabular retroversion. Int Orthop PMID 20455060. Published May 10, 2010. Accessed August 12, 2010.
- 34 . Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(3):666–675.
- 35 . Weightbearing anteroposterior pelvic radiographs are recommended in DDH assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466(4):813–819.
- 36 . Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;445:181–185.
- 37 . The frog-leg lateral radiograph accurately visualized hip cam impingement abnormalities. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;462:115–121.
- 38 . Cam-type femoral-acetabular impingement: is the alpha angle the best MR arthrography has to offer? Skeletal Radiol 2009;38(9):855–862.
- 39 . A new radiological index for assessing asphericity of the femoral head in cam impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89(10):1309–1316.
Article History
Received December 14, 2010; revision requested January 19, 2011; final revision received March 25; accepted April 4; final version accepted April 6.Published online: Aug 2011
Published in print: Aug 2011