Three‐dimensional assessment of impingement risk in geometrically parameterised hips compared with clinical measures

Abstract Abnormal bony morphology is a factor implicated in hip joint soft tissue damage and an increased lifetime risk of osteoarthritis. Standard 2‐dimensional radiographic measurements for diagnosis of hip deformities, such as cam deformities on the femoral neck, do not capture the full joint geometry and are not indicative of symptomatic damage. In this study, a 3‐dimensional geometric parameterisation system was developed to capture key variations in the femur and acetabulum of subjects with clinically diagnosed cam deformity. The parameterisation was performed for computed tomography scans of 20 patients (10 female and 10 male). Novel quantitative measures of cam deformity were taken and used to assess differences in morphological deformities between males and females. The parametric surfaces matched the more detailed, segmented hip bone geometry with low fitting error. The quantitative severity measures captured both the size and the position of cams and distinguished between cam and control femurs. The precision of the measures was sufficient to identify differences between subjects that could not be seen with the sole use of 2‐dimensional imaging. In particular, cams were found to be more superiorly located in males than in females. As well as providing a means to distinguish between subjects more clearly, the new geometric hip parameterisation facilitates the flexible and rapid generation of a range of realistic hip geometries including cams. When combined with material property models, these stratified cam shapes can be used for further assessment of the effect of the geometric variation under impingement conditions.

[1]  Manasi Datar,et al.  Statistical shape modeling of cam femoroacetabular impingement , 2013, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[2]  R. Ganz,et al.  Comparison of Six Radiographic Projections to Assess Femoral Head/Neck Asphericity , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  C. Pfirrmann,et al.  Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. , 2006, Radiology.

[4]  F. Impellizzeri,et al.  Reliability and Agreement of Measures Used in Radiographic Evaluation of the Adult Hip , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  Heinse Bouma,et al.  Combining femoral and acetabular parameters in femoroacetabular impingement: the omega surface , 2015, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[6]  Christopher L Peters,et al.  Correlations between the alpha angle and femoral head asphericity: Implications and recommendations for the diagnosis of cam femoroacetabular impingement. , 2014, European journal of radiology.

[7]  P. Beaulé,et al.  Incidence of Hip Pain in a Prospective Cohort of Asymptomatic Volunteers , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[8]  J. Hodler,et al.  The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[9]  Stephen J Ferguson,et al.  The effects of impingement and dysplasia on stress distributions in the hip joint during sitting and walking: A finite element analysis , 2009, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[10]  L. Engesæter,et al.  The alpha angle in cam-type femoroacetabular impingement: new reference intervals based on 2038 healthy young adults. , 2014, The bone & joint journal.

[11]  M. Salata,et al.  Radiographic Signs of Femoroacetabular Impingement Are Associated With Decreased Pelvic Incidence. , 2016, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[12]  N. Michoux,et al.  Anatomic features associated with femoroacetabular impingement are equally common in hips of old and young asymptomatic individuals without CT signs of osteoarthritis. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  R. Ganz,et al.  Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. A MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[14]  Benjamin J. Ellis,et al.  Finite element prediction of cartilage contact stresses in normal human hips , 2012, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[15]  Olufemi R. Ayeni,et al.  Alpha angle correction in femoroacetabular impingement , 2014, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[16]  F. Ergen,et al.  CT assessment of asymptomatic hip joints for the background of femoroacetabular impingement morphology. , 2014, Diagnostic and interventional radiology.

[17]  S. Nho,et al.  Sex Differences in Patients With CAM Deformities With Femoroacetabular Impingement: 3-Dimensional Computed Tomographic Quantification. , 2015, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[18]  P. Banerjee,et al.  Femoroacetabular impingement: a review of diagnosis and management , 2011, Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine.

[19]  P. Beaulé,et al.  Comparison of MRI Alpha Angle Measurement Planes in Femoroacetabular Impingement , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[20]  M. Tannast,et al.  Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  R. Ganz,et al.  Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  Benjamin J. Ellis,et al.  Effects of Idealized Joint Geometry on Finite Element Predictions of Cartilage Contact Stresses in the Hip , 2022 .