Published Online:

Because of the large overlap between alpha angles in patients with cam-type deformities and in volunteers, it is difficult to describe an optimal alpha-angle threshold value that is both highly specific and sensitive.


To compare the alpha-angle measurements in volunteers and patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and to develop potential threshold values.

Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the institutional review board; all individuals signed informed consent. Magnetic resonance (MR) images at 1.5 T in 106 individuals (ages 20–50 years) were analyzed in 53 patients (33 cam- and 20 mixed-type FAI) and 53 age- and sex-matched asymptomatic volunteers. Alpha angles were measured on radially reformatted MR images of the proximal femur by two independent readers. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were calculated.


Mean alpha angles were highest in the anterosuperior segment: 65.4° ± 11.5 [standard deviation] and 65.2° ± 7.3 for readers 1 and 2 in patients and 53.3° ± 9.6 and 55.0° ± 8.8 in volunteers, respectively (P < .001, patients vs volunteers). Alpha angles greater than 55° were measured in 20 (38%) and 33 (62%) of 53 volunteers for readers 1 and 2, respectively. Maximal alpha angle in any segment was substantially different (P < .001) in patients and volunteers (70.3° ± 11.2 vs 57.9° ± 10.5 for reader 1; 69.4° ± 8.8 vs 58.7° ± 8.9 for reader 2), with a large overlap. Overall interobserver agreement was good (ICC, 0.712). ROC showed the largest area under the curve at the anterosuperior segment: 0.791 and 0.824 for readers 1 and 2, respectively (P < .001). A 55° alpha-angle threshold value gave a sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 65% for reader 1 and of 90% and 47% for reader 2, respectively. A 60° alpha-angle threshold value gave a sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 76% for reader 1 and 80% and 73% for reader 2, respectively.


There is substantial overlap in the alpha-angle measurements between volunteers and patients with cam-type deformities. Discrimination is best at the anterosuperior segment. Increasing the alpha-angle threshold value from 55° to 60° reduces false-positive results while maintaining a reasonable sensitivity.

© RSNA, 2012


  • 1 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. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wagner S, Hofstetter W, Chiquet M, et al.. Early osteoarthritic changes of human femoral head cartilage subsequent to femoro-acetabular impingement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2003;11(7):508–518. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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(3):778–785. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Allen D, Beaulé PE, Ramadan O, Doucette S. Prevalence of associated deformities and hip pain in patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91(5):589–594. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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(7):1012–1018. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tannast M, Zheng G, Anderegg C, et al.. Tilt and rotation correction of acetabular version on pelvic radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;438:182–190. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Werner CM, Copeland CE, Ruckstuhl T, et al.. Radiographic markers of acetabular retroversion: correlation of the cross-over sign, ischial spine sign and posterior wall sign. Acta Orthop Belg 2010;76(2):166–173. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jamali AA, Mladenov K, Meyer DC, et al.. Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs to assess acetabular retroversion: high validity of the “cross-over-sign”. J Orthop Res 2007;25(6):758–765. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R, et al.. Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(3):666–675. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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(3):651–659. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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(4):556–560. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nouh MR, Schweitzer ME, Rybak L, Cohen J. Femoroacetabular impingement: can the alpha angle be estimated? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(5):1260–1262. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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(9):855–862. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Panzer S, Augat P, Esch U. CT assessment of herniation pits: prevalence, characteristics, and potential association with morphological predictors of femoroacetabular impingement. Eur Radiol 2008;18(9):1869–1875. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hack K, Di Primio G, Rakhra K, Beaulé PE. Prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92(14):2436–2444. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Reichenbach S, Jüni P, Werlen S, et al.. 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. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kang AC, Gooding AJ, Coates MH, Goh TD, Armour P, Rietveld J. Computed tomography assessment of hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 2010;38(6):1160–1165. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CWA. Femoral antetorsion: comparing asymptomatic volunteers and patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology 2012;263(2):475–483. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Klaue K, Durnin CW, Ganz R. The acetabular rim syndrome: a clinical presentation of dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73(3):423–429. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaulé PE. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469(2):464–469. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Barros HJ, Camanho GL, Bernabé AC, Rodrigues MB, Leme LE. Femoral head-neck junction deformity is related to osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(7):1920–1925. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rakhra KS, Sheikh AM, Allen D, Beaulé PE. Comparison of MRI alpha angle measurement planes in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(3):660–665. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Siebenrock KA, Ferner F, Noble PC, Santore RF, Werlen S, Mamisch TC. The cam-type deformity of the proximal femur arises in childhood in response to vigorous sporting activity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469(11):3229–3240. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pollard TC, Villar 0RN, Norton MR, et al.. Femoroacetabular impingement and classification of the cam deformity: the reference interval in normal hips. Acta Orthop 2010;81(1):134–141. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Narayanaswamy SM, Chakraverty JK, Sullivan C, Kamath S. Prevalence of morphological abnormalities predisposing to femoroacetabular impingement in aymptomatic young population on computed tomography [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North American, 2010. Accessed October 9, 2011. Google Scholar
  • 26 Palmer WE. Femoroacetabular impingement: caution is warranted in making imaging-based assumptions and diagnoses. Radiology 2010;257(1):4–7. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hartofilakidis G, Bardakos NV, Babis GC, Georgiades G. An examination of the association between different morphotypes of femoroacetabular impingement in asymptomatic subjects and the development of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011;93(5):580–586. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ganz R, Gill TJ, Gautier E, Ganz K, Krügel N, Berlemann U. 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. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Matsuda DK, Carlisle JC, Arthurs SC, Wierks CH, Philippon MJ. Comparative systematic review of the open dislocation, mini-open, and arthroscopic surgeries for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy 2011;27(2):252–269. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Yen YM, Kuppersmith DA. Outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement with associated chondrolabral dysfunction: minimum two-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91(1):16–23. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Horisberger M, Brunner A, Herzog RF. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement of the hip: a new technique to access the joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(1):182–190. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ito K, Minka MA, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R. 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. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received December 1, 2011; revision requested January 19, 2012; final revision received February 6; accepted February 23; final version accepted February 27.
Published online: Aug 2012
Published in print: Aug 2012