/
AJR:188, June 2007 2007; 188:1540 AJR:188, June 2007 2007; 188:1540

AJR:188, June 2007 2007; 188:1540 - PDF document

mitsue-stanley
mitsue-stanley . @mitsue-stanley
Follow
395 views
Uploaded On 2017-11-22

AJR:188, June 2007 2007; 188:1540 - PPT Presentation

Tannast et alFemoroacetabular ImpingementMusculoskeletal Imaging ID: 607470

Tannast al.Femoroacetabular ImpingementMusculoskeletal Imaging

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "AJR:188, June 2007 2007; 188:1540" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

AJR:188, June 2007 2007; 188:1540…15520361…803X/07/1886…1540© American Roentgen Ray Society Tannast et al.Femoroacetabular ImpingementMusculoskeletal Imaging•ReviewFemoroacetabular Impingement: Radiographic Diagnosis—What the Radiologist Should KnowMoritz TannastKlaus A. SiebenrockSuzanne E. Anderson2,3 Keywords: bone, femoroacetabular impingement, hip, musculoskeletal imaging, orthopedic surgery, radiographyDOI:10.2214/AJR.06.0921Received July 25, 2006; accepted after revision November8, 2006. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inselspital, University of Bern, Switzerland.Department of Diagnostic, Pediatric and Interventional Radiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Switzerland. F Femoroacetabular ImpingementAJR:188, June 20071541Fig.1„Flowchart shows classification of types of femoroacetabular impingement.Fig.2„Normal configuration of hip with sufficient joint clearance allows unrestricted range of motion (top). In pincer impingement, excessive acetabular overcoverage leads to early linear contact between femoral head…neck junction and acetabular rim, resulting in labrum degeneration and significant cartilage damage. Posteroinferior portion of joint is damaged (contrecoup) due to subtle subluxations (center). In cam impingement, aspherical portion of femoral head…neck junction is jammed into acetabulum (bottomFig.3„Clinical tests to assess femoroacetabular impingement. Anterior impingement sign (left) is positive, with painful forced internal rotation in 90º of flexion. In extreme forms, there is unavoidable passive external rotation of hip during hip flexion (DrehmannsŽ sign, center). Posterior impingementŽ sign is positive when there is painful forced external rotation in maximal extension (right Femoroacetabular ImpingementAcetabulum(excessive coverage)= Pincer impingementFemur(nonspherical head)= Cam impingementOsseous bumpFemoralCoxa vara Lateral(pistol-gripdeformity)AnterosuperiorGeneralFocalCoxaProtrusioacetabuliAnterior(acetabularretroversion)Posteriorposterior wall) Conventional Radiographic ImagingTechniqueThe role of imaging in femoroacetabularimpingement is to evaluate the hip for abnor-malities associated with impingement and toexclude arthritis, avascular necrosis, or otherjoint problems on radiographs. MRI or MR ar-thrography can then be used to confirm or ex-clude labral tears, cartilage damage, and otherpathologic signs of internal hip derangement ifimpingement is suspected. Alternatively, radi-ography is then usually followed by MRI forcartilage and labral disorders and a 3D under-standing of the bone anatomy.Standard conventional radiographic imag-ing for femoroacetabular impingement in-cludes two radiographs (Fig.4): an antero-posterior pelvic view and an axial cross-tableview of the proximal femur [3]. An alternativeto the axial view, a Dunn/Rippstein view,preferably in 45º of flexion, can be obtainedto reveal pathomorphologies of the anteriorfemoral head–neck junction [14]. For the an-teroposterior pelvic radiograph, the patient isin the supine position with the legs 15º inter-nally rotated to compensate for femoral an-tetorsion and to provide better visualizationof the contour of the lateral femoralhead–neck junction [15]. The film-focus dis-tance is 1.2 m; the central beam is directed tothe midpoint between a line connecting bothanterosuperior iliac spines and the superiorborder of the symphysis (Fig.4), which caneasily and reproducibly be palpated by the ra-diology technician [16, 17]. Accordingly, thecross-table view of the proximal femur istaken with the leg internally rotated, with afilm-focus distance of 1.2 m, and with thecentral beam directed to the inguinal fold[18]. If these prerequisites of correct position-ing of the patient and accurate radiographictechnique are not fulfilled, the radiographsmust be interpreted with caution.A faux profile of Lequesne and de Sèze [19]may be used for quantification of anterior over-coverage but is rarely indicated for femoroac-etabular impingement because it does not showthe relationship between the anterior and theposterior acetabular rims. Rather, it is used toassess the posteroinferior part of the hip joint todetect the so-called contrecoup lesions in pin-cer impingement described later.To determine accurately the individual pel-vic tilt of a patient, a strong lateral view of thepelvis can be obtained (Fig.5B). Correct in-terpretation of pelvic tilt is crucial for accu-rate description and radiographic assessmentof individual hip parameters. A neutral tilt is Tannast et al.AJR:188, June 2007Fig.4„Correct setting for anteroposterior and strong lateral (left) pelvic radiography. Cross-table axial radiograph of hip (right) is needed to visualize anatomy of anterior femoral head…neck junction, which is not visible on anteroposterior pelvic radiograph.Fig.5„27-year-old woman. Bilateral cross-overŽ sign is visible on this anteroposterior pelvic radiograph that is analyzed with specifically developed software HipNorm (University of Bern, Switzerland) for tilt and rotation correction of parameters of pelvic radiographs [17]. Strong lateral view shows pelvic inclination of 75º, representing anterior tilt of 15º in relation to neutral inclination of 60º [20]. Computerized virtual correction to neutral orientation reveals normal hip morphology. defined with a pelvic inclination angle of 60º,which includes a horizontal line and a lineconnecting the upper border of the symphysisand the sacral promontory [20] (Fig.5).The use of gonadal shielding is not particu-larly recommended for the initial assessment ofthe hip because it impedes correct interpretationof the individual tilt and rotation described later.Pincer ImpingementPincer impingement is more common inmiddle-aged women, occurring at an averageage of 40 years, and can occur with various Femoroacetabular ImpingementAJR:188, June 20071543disorders (Table1). Pincer impingement isthe result of overcoverage of the hip and canlead to osteoarthritis [21]. Pincer impinge-ment is also the result of a linear contact be-tween the acetabular rim and the femoralhead–neck junction due to general or focal ac-etabular overcoverage (Fig.2). In contrast tocam impingement, cartilage damage of theacetabular cartilage is restricted in pincer hipsto a small thin strip near the labrum that isially located [7].General Acetabular OvercoverageNormally, general acetabular overcover-age is correlated with the radiologic depthof the acetabular fossa. A normal hip ap-pears on an anteroposterior pelvic radio-graph with the acetabular fossa line lyinglaterally to the ilioischial line (Fig.6). Acoxa profunda is defined with the floor ofthe fossa acetabuli touching or overlappingthe ilioischial line medially (Fig.7). Protru-sio acetabuli occurs when the femoral headis overlapping the ilioischial line medially(Fig.8). Both forms relate to an increaseddepth of the acetabuli; however, at this stageno clear information exists that the two en-tities are a continuation of each other.Generally, a deep acetabulum is associatedwith excessive acetabular coverage that can bequantified with the lateral center edge angle orthe acetabular index [22]. The lateral centeredge angle is the angle formed by a vertical linee femoral head centerwith the lateral edge of the acetabulum. A nor-mal lateral center edge angle varies between25º (which defines a dysplasia) [23] and 39º(which is an indicator for acetabular overcov-erage) [24]. The acetabular index is the angleformed by a horizontal line and a line connect-ing the medial point of the sclerotic zone withthe lateral center of the acetabulum. In hipswith coxa profunda or protrusio acetabuli, theacetabular index (also called “acetabular roofangle”) is typically 0º or even negative.TABLE1:Characteristics of the Two Types of Femoroacetabular ImpingementCriteriaPincer ImpingementCam ImpingementCauseFocal or general overcoverageAspherical headMechanismLinear contact between overcovering rim and head…neck junctionJamming of aspherical head portion into acetabulumSex distribution (M:F)1:314:1Average age (range) (y)40 (40…57)32 (21…51)Typical location of cartilage damageCircumferential with contrecoup11- to 3-oclock positionAverage depth of cartilage damage (mm)411Associated disordersBladder extrophySlipped capital femoral epiphysisProximal femoral focal deficiency Legg-Calvé-Perthes diseasePosttraumatic dysplasiaPosttraumatic retrotorsion of femoral headChronic residual dysplasia of acetabulumCoxa varaLegg-Calvé-Perthes diseasePistol-grip deformitySlipped capital femoral epiphysis Head-tilt deformityAfter acetabular reorientation proceduresPost-slip deformityIdiopathic retroversionFemoral retroversionGrowth abnormality of femoral epiphysisRadiographic signs on anteroposterior radiographsCoxa profundaPistol-grip deformityProtrusio acetabuliCCD angle125°Focal acetabular retroversion (figure-8 configuration)Horizontal growth plate signLateral center edge angle&#x-218;&#x.400;39°Reduced extrusion indexAcetabular indexPosterior wall signRadiographic signs on cross-table radiographsLinear indentation signAlpha angle&#x-218;&#x.400;50°Femoral head…neck offset8 mmOffset ratio0.18Femoral retrotorsionSecondary changes Herniation pitsOssification of labrumAppositional bone signOs acetabuliPosterior inferior joint space loss (on faux profile in pincer hips)Note„CCD=centrum collum diaphyseal angle. Tannast et al.AJR:188, June 2007Another parameter for quantification offemoral coverage is the femoral head extrusionindex, which defines the percentage of femoralhead that is uncovered when a horizontal line isdrawn parallel to the interteardrop line [25]. Anormal extrusion index is less than 25% [26];however, to our knowledge no study has de-fined a minimum extrusion.A pitfall: Formation of a pseudodeep ace-tabulum can be produced on an anteroposte-rior radiograph that is centered over the hip(Fig.9). Because of this centering error, theseradiographs are not useful for reliable diagno-sis of a deep acetabulum.Focal Acetabular OvercoverageFocal overcoverage can occur in the anterioror the posterior part of the acetabulum. AnteriorFig.6„Schematic (left) and radiographic (rightappearances of normal hip (detailed view of anteroposterior pelvic radiograph) in 35-year-old man. Acetabular fossa (F) is lateral to ilioischial line (IIL). Acetabular index (AI) is positive, and femoral head (H) is not entirely covered by acetabulum (E). Projected anterior wall (AW) lies medially to posterior wall (PW), which typically runs more or less through center of femoral head. Extrusion index (E / [A+E]) is approximately 25%. Lateral center edge (LCE) angle is 25…39º. Epiphyseal scar lies in femoral head circle arrowsA=covered portion of femoral head, E=uncovered portion of femoral head.Fig.7„Schematic (presentations of coxa profunda (detailed view of anteroposterior pelvic radiograph) in 29-year-old woman. Acetabular fossa (F) is touching or overlapping ilioischial line (IIL). Femoral head (H) is more covered, resulting in decreased femoral head extrusion index (E / [A+E]), neutral acetabular index (AI'), and increased lateral center edge (LCE') angle. A'=covered portion of the femoral head, E'=uncovered portion of the femoral head.Fig.8„Schematic (left) and radiographic (rightpresentations of protrusio acetabuli (detailed view of anteroposterior pelvic radiograph) in 42-year-old woman. Femoral head line (H) is crossing ilioischial line (IIL). As a consequence, femoral head extrusion index (E / [A+E]) is zero or even negative, acetabular index (AI") is negative, and lateral center edge (LCE") angle increases. F=acetabular fossa. A"=covered portion of femoral head, E"=uncovered portion of femoral head. LCE'HFIILAI'E'A' AI"LCE"E"F Femoroacetabular ImpingementAJR:188, June 20071545Fig.9„Influence of direction of center of X-ray beam on appearance of acetabular depth in 22-year-old man. Arrows show herniation pit caused by cam type of femoroacetabular impingement. IIL=ilioischial line, AW=anterior wall, PW=posterior wall, F=fossa. Section of anteroposterior pelvic radiograph shows regular acetabular configuration with acetabular fossa lying lateral to ilioischial line. Hip radiograph centered over hip shows apparent coxa profunda. In addition, version of acetabulum seems to be larger with anterior wall being projected more medially.Fig.10„Schematic (left) and radiographic (rightpresentations of focal anterior overcoverage of hip in 29-year-old woman. Acetabular retroversion is defined as anterior wall (AW) being more lateral than posterior wall (PW), whereas in normal hip anterior wall lies more medially. This cranial acetabular retroversion can also be described by figure-8 configuration.Fig.11„Schematic (left) and radiographic (rightpresentations of too-prominent posterior wall (PW) show posterior wall line running laterally to femoral head center in 30-year-old man. Tannast et al.AJR:188, June 2007overcoverage is called “cranial acetabularretroversion” or “anterior focal acetabularretroversion” and causes anterior femoroac-etabular impingement that can be reproducedclinically with painful flexion and internal rota-tion. By carefully tracing the anterior and pos-terior acetabular rims, different acetabularconfigurations can be identified. A normal ac-etabulum is anteverted and has the anterior rimline projected medially to the posterior wall line[16, 27–29] (Fig.6). A focal overcoverage ofthe anterosuperior acetabulum causes a crani-ally retroverted acetabulum. This is definedwith the anterior rim line being lateral to theposterior rim in the cranial part of the acetabu-lum and crossing the latter in the distal part ofthe acetabulum. This figure-8 configuration iscalled the “cross-over” sign (Fig.10).Fig.12„Faux profile of 25-year-old man with pincer impingement shows posteroinferior joint space narrowing arrow) as result of recurrent subluxations, which is unfavorable prognostic sign. Fig.13„Retroversion sign can be missed if central X-ray beam is not directed correctly. In this cadaveric pelvis with wire marking acetabular rims, cranial acetabular retroversion is visible on left side on anteroposterior pelvic radiograph. Center of X-ray beam is marked with radiopaque marker. On anteroposterior hip view, retroversion sign disappears. To distinguish between a too-prominent ante-rior wall and a deficient posterior wall, the pos-terior wall must be depicted in more detail.Therefore, the “posterior wall” sign was intro-duced as an indicator for a prominent posteriorwall. This can cause posterior impingementwith reproducible pain in hip extension and ex-ternal rotation (Fig.3). In a normal hip, the vis-ible outline of the posterior rim descends ap-proximately through the center point of thefemoral head (Fig.6). If the posterior line lieslaterally to the femoral center, a more prominentposterior wall is present (Fig.11). In contrast, adeficient posterior wall has the posterior rimmedial to the femoral head center. A deficientposterior wall is often correlated with acetabularretroversion or dysplasia [27]; an excessive pos-terior wall can often be seen in hips with coxaprofunda or protrusio acetabuli but can also oc-cur as an isolated entity. Acetabular retroversioncan also be caused by acetabular reorientationprocedures if the configuration of the acetabularrims is not taken into consideration [30, 31].This persistent abutment in the anteriorpart of the joint can lead to a slight sublux-ation posteroinferiorly. The increased pres-sure between the posteroinferior acetabulumand the posteromedial aspect of the femoralhead can cause chondral damage to the pos-teroinferior part of the acetabulum as a con-trecoup lesion, which occurs in approxi-mately one third of pincer cases [3, 7, 32].The resulting loss of joint space can be visu-alized on a faux profile and is a bad prognos-tic sign (Fig.12). Femoroacetabular ImpingementAJR:188, June 20071547Fig.14„Influence of individual pelvic orientation on appearance of acetabular rim. Normal acetabular configuration is shown in this cadaveric pelvis with wire marking acetabular rims. a=vertical distance between upper border of symphysis and sacrococcygeal joint. Increased pelvic tilt (visible on increased distance between symphysis and sacrococcygeal joint, a) leads to apparent retroversion of acetabular rim on both sides. Arrows indicate apparent bilateral retroversion due to increased pelvic tilt. Rotation to right (with consecutive increased horizontal distance between middle of symphysis and sacrococcygeal joint, b (horizontal distance between mid of symphysis and mid of sacrococcygeal joint) leads to apparent retroversion of right hip and to pronounced anteversion of left hip. Arrow indicates creation of apparent retroversion on right side due to rotation on right. Regarding pitfalls, in certain hips, distin-guishing between the two lines of the acetab-ular rim is difficult. As a helpful guideline, theposterior rim line can always be readily iden-tified when starting from the inferior edge ofthe acetabulum.An anteroposterior radiograph centeredover the hip is not usable for reliable diag-nosis of acetabular retroversion. This pro-jection will imply a discrepancy in the ap-pearance of the acetabular rim comparedwith a standard pelvic radiograph, on whichthe anterior rim will be displayed moreprominently because it lies closer to theX-ray beam source [17, 29]. Therefore, ac-etabular version is generally overestimatedwhen interpreting an anteroposterior radio-graph centered over the hip. In addition, across-over sign can even be missed if onlyan anteroposterior radiograph of the hip isavailable (Fig.13).The appearance of acetabular morphologydepends on the individual pelvic orientation,which can vary considerably in terms of tiltand rotation [33]. Increased pelvic tilt or a ro-tation to the ipsilateral hip leads to a morepronounced retroversion sign and vice versa[16, 17, 34, 35] (Fig.14). A neutral pelvic ro-tation is defined as the tip of the coccyx point-ing toward the midpoint of the superior aspectof the symphysis pubis. As a general rule, aneutral pelvic tilt is defined as the distance of3.2 cm between the upper border of the sym-physis and the midportion of the sacrococ-cygeal joint for men, and 4.7 cm for women[16]. With the help of one additional lateralradiograph, the radiographs of extensively ro-tated or tilted pelves can be calculated backwith recently developed software Hip(University of Bern, Switzerland)to ensure andent of anatomically the acetabular mor-phologic configuration [17] (Fig.5). If ob-tained, the lateral pelvic view must be takenafter the anteroposterior projection withoutmotion of the patient and with the centralbeam directed to the upper tip of the greatertrochanter (Fig.4).In addition to acetabular pathomorpholo-gies, pincer impingement can also be causedby excessive hip motion in patients in whom noobvious acetabular disorder is present. It oc-curs typically in hypermobile young women(e.g., ballet dancers). Tannast et al.AJR:188, June 2007Cam ImpingementCam impingement is more common inyoung men, occurring at an average age of 32years. Cam impingement is the femoral causeof femoroacetabular impingement and iscaused by an aspherical shape of the femoralhead where the nonspherical portion is jammedinto the acetabulum as a result of several knowncauses or idiopathically [6, 36, 37] (Fig.2 andTable1). These osseous bumps lead to a de-creased femoral head–neck offset, which is de-fined by the distance between the widest diam-eter of the femoral head and the most prominentpart of the femoral neck (Fig.15). The recur-rent irritation leads to an abrasion of the acetab-ular cartilage or its avulsion from the subchon-dral bone [38]. The cartilage area involved incam impingement is much larger than pure pin-cer impingement and may be associated withlarge areas of cartilage delamination or fissur-ing. However, in both mechanisms, althoughthere is significant and irreversible prearthriticdamage of the cartilage, there is no joint spacenarrowing because only the quality of the carti-lage, and not its diameter, is impaired in theearly stage of the disease.Cam impingement can be caused by an os-seous bump on the femoral head–neck junc-tion or by a retroverted femoral neck or head.Osseous bumps are typically located eitherin the lateral (so-called pistol grip, seenonan anteroposterior pelvic radiograph[Fig.15A]) or in the anterosuperior (seen onan axial cross-table view of the proximal fe-mur [Figs.15B and 15C]) portion of thefemoral head–neck junction (Figs.15B and15C). A pistol-grip deformity is character-ized on radiographs by flattening of the usu-ally concave surface of the lateral aspect ofthe femoral head due to an abnormal exten-sion of the more horizontally oriented femo-ral epiphysis [39–42] (Fig.15).Cam impingement is usually caused by aprimary osseous variant of the head–neckjunction that is considered to be caused by agrowth abnormality of the capital femoral ep-iphysis [42], but it can also be the result ofseveral known causes, such as a subclinicalslipped capital femoral epiphysis [43–45] orLegg-Calvé-Perthes disease [4, 46], or it canoccur after femoral neck fractures [2, 47]; itmay also be idiopathic (Table1).Quantification of the amount of asphericitycan be accomplished by the angle , the femo-ral offset, or the offset ratio [37]. Angle is theangle between the femoral neck axis and a lineconnecting the head center with the point of be-ginning asphericity of the head–neck contour(Fig.15). It can be measured on radiographs.An angle exceeding 50º is an indicator of an ab-normally shaped femoral head–neck contour.Another parameter for quantification ofcam impingement is the anterior offset, whichis defined as the difference in radius betweenthe anterior femoral head and the anterior fem-oral neck on a cross-table axial view of theproximal femur (Fig.15). In asymptomatichips, the anterior offset is 11.6 ± 0.7 mm; hipswith cam impingement have a decreased ante-rior offset of 7.2 ± 0.7 mm [18]. As a generalrule for clinical practice, an anterior offset lessthan 10 mm is a strong indicator for cam im-pingement. In addition, the so-called offset ra-tio can be calculated, which is defined as theratio between the anterior offset and the diam-eter of the head. The offset ratio is 0.21 ± 0.03in asymptomatic patients and 0.13 ± 0.05 inhips with cam impingement.Fig.15„Cam impingements. Pistol-grip deformity with abnormal extension of epiphyseal scar (arrows) in 19-year-old man. Axial view of normal hip with normal offset (OS) and normal alpha angle (0º) in 32-year-old man. Decreased femoral head…neck offset (OS') with consecutive increased alpha angle (') in 26-year-old man. Femoroacetabular ImpingementAJR:188, June 20071549Another cause for cam impingement isfemoral retrotorsion, which can occur as a pri-mary entity [48] or posttraumatically afterhealed femoral neck fractures [47]. Femoralretrotorsion can be calculated reliably only onCT scans involving thparts of the femur [49]. In addition, a coxavara (defined by a centrum collum diaphysealangle [CCD] of less than 125º) has been rec-ognized as a cause of cam impingement [50].A pitfall: In the initial phase of the disease,omic abnormalities anddo not represent classic osteophytes. Classicosteophytes occur in an advanced stage of thedisease when the cartilage damage alreadyhas taken place. Osteophyte formation canlead to a worsening of femoroacetabular im-pingement, an increase of the overcoveragefor pincer hips, or a further loss of femoralhead–neck offset. Through careful evaluationof the radiographs, the original acetabular rimcan be identified. Occasionally, on the femo-ral side at the head–neck junction, a linear in-dentation may be observed in hips with pincerimpingement and a cortical thickening(Fig.17).In the end stage of pincer impinge-ment, posteroinferior cartilage abrasion oc-curs, which is the result of the contrecoup le-sion during subtle subluxation of the femoralhead. This bad prognostic sign is best seen ona faux profile of the hip or, if available, onMRI (Fig.12).Secondary Radiographic ChangesinHipsUnrecognized femoroacetabular im-pingement leads to recurrent irritation of theacetabular labrum, which is the first struc-ture involved and which is seen in both typesof impingement. It leads to a reactive ossifi-cation, particularly of the labral basis [8](Fig.16). In an advanced stage of the dis-ease, additional reactive bone apposition atthe osseous rim leads to further deepeningof the acetabulum, thereby increasing theimpingement problem, which can also beseen as a double contour of the acetabularrim (Fig.16). Because of the abnormalstress in impinging hips, the prominent ace-tabular bone fragment can even be separatedfrom the adjacent bone margin. This os ace-tabulum is an acetabular rim fracture, pre-sumed to be a stress or impingement frac-ture, resulting from a constant jamming ofthe femoral head against the acetabulum[27] (Fig.16).Hips with femoroacetabular impingementhave a significantly higher prevalence of herni-ght to be benign andincidental and the cause of which was notclearly understood [51]. Herniation pits are ra-diolucencies surrounded by a sclerotic marginthat are typically located in the anterior proxi-mal superior quadrant of the femoral neck andoccur in some 33% of patients; they range insize from 3 to 15 mm (mean, 5 mm) [52]. Thispreviously described location correspondswell to the typical location where the femoro-acetabular impingement occurs. Therefore,hips with these juxtaarticular cysts should beconsidered a joint at risk for femoroacetabularimpingement rather than one with a benign le-sion, but herniation pits are not always associ-ated with symptomatic impingement.General Pearls and Pitfalls ofFemoroacetabular ImpingementImagingSystemic disorders with hip joint involve-ment may superficially mimic femoroacetab-ular impingement; these include ankylosingspondylitis, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyper-ostosis (DISH), and congenital hip dysplasia.However, these are usually easy to distinguishFig.16„Secondary radiographic signs of femoroacetabular impingement. Recurrent impingement can lead to ossification of labral basis (white arrow) and to osseous apposition of acetabular rim, which is visible as double contour (black arrowsin 45-year-old woman. Because of abnormal stress in impinging hips, prominent acetabular bone fragment can even be separated from adjacent bone margin (os acetabuli, arrow) in 36-year-old man with pistol-grip deformity. Tannast et al.AJR:188, June 2007from systemic disorders with hip joint in-volvement by reviewing the sacroiliac jointsthat will be fused or pathologic with anky-other seronegativespondyloarthropathies and the spine for ante-rior longitudinal ligament calcification withDISH. Congenital hip dysplasia presenting inadulthood is characterized by a lack of ace-tabular coverage and by lateral proximal fem-oral head subluxation and is more commonlyassociated with large e Rarely, patients with femoroacetabular im-pingement may have additional disorders suchas hydroxyapatite deposition in the acetabularlabrum; however, this calcification has usuallyresolved on follow-up radiographs at 6 weeks.More commonly, in the younger adolescentage group, there may be associated enthesopa-thy of the greater trochanter associated withgluteal tendon overuse, as evident by bonespurring of the greater trochanter.Femoroacetabular impingement is oftenbilateral but may present asynchronously. Al-though symptomatic presentation may be de-layed on one side, reviewing both hip joints ists with typical femo-roacetabular impingement, radiographic fea-tures may be asymptomatic as a result of lackof activity or of being at an early stage in thedevelopment of femoroacetabular impinge-ment. Although there are characteristic imag-ing findings of femoroacetabular impinge-ment, at this stage of knowledge, the goldstandard remains the patient’s pain and notthe imaging findings alone. However, becausethe prognosis of the hip joint is significantlybetter if the intraarticular impingement iseliminated as early as possible, surgical re-construction of the hip joint is recommendedas soon as the first symptoms occur [4, 38].A suboptimal or faulty radiographic tech-nique of the pelvis and hip joint may over-or underestimate or falsely diagnose femo-roacetabular impingement. In addition tofirst reviewing for overall symmetry of thehip joints on the frontal radiograph, in abusy clinical setting with no strong lateralview obtained, brief review of the locationof the sacrococcygeal joint in relation to thesuperior aspect of the symphysis pubis ishelpful. If the sacrococcygeal joint is withinapproximately 3.2 cm of the symphysis formen or 4.7 cm for women, then the pelvictilt should be largely neutral. Suboptimaltechnique may be minimized by obtainingradiographs as described in this article or byusing a computer-assisted program that cor-rects for malpositioning [17] (Fig.5). Accu-rate angles, measurements, and ratios arealso possible with such a tool, as is accuratepreoperative planning.Another way of reviewing the radiographsfor femoroacetabular impingement in a busyclinical setting is to use the PACS tool to pre-scribe a circle, beginning centered on the cen-tral point of the femoral head, and to enlargethis circle until the femoral head expansion ismet. If there is any bone beyond this circle,then cam impingement is likely. These circlescan be drawn on both the frontal and axial ra-diographs (Fig.15).Treatment of Femoroacetabular ImpingementSurgical treatment of femoroacetabularimpingement focuses on improving the clear-ance for hip motion and alleviation of femoralabutment against the acetabular rim. This in-cludes basically the surgical resection of theimpinging cause, by trimming the acetabularrim or the femoral head–neck offset either viaa surgical hip dislocation [3, 12, 54] or arthro-scopically [55], or, rarely, by the reorientationof a retroverted acetabulum via a reversed pe-riacetabular osteotomy [28]. Mid-term resultsfrom these procedures are promising [4, 38].ConclusionIn conclusion, two main forms of femoro-acetabular impingement—pincer and cam—occur in young active individuals presentingwith hip pain, although most patients willhave a combination of both impingementtypes. The radiographic technique and typicalfindings have been presented. MRI and MRarthrography are important for further evalu-ation of the osseous and soft-tissue abnormal-ities of impingement; these will be presentedFig.17„Pincer hips in 37-year-old woman. and In pincer hips, corresponding linear indentation often occurs on femoral side (black arrows) with reactive cortical thickening (white arrows), which can be seen on conventional radiograph () and on MR arthrogram with intraarticular contrast agent ( Femoroacetabular ImpingementAJR:188, June 20071551References1.Klaue K, Durnin CW, Ganz R. The acetabular rimsyndrome: a clinical presentation of dysplasia of thehip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991; 73:423–4292.Ganz R, Bamert P, Hausner P, Isler B, Vrevc F.Cervico-acetabular impingement after femoralneck fracture [in German]. Unfallchirurg 1991;94:172–1753.Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Sie-benrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: acause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat 2003; 417:1–94.Murphy SB, Tannast M, Kim YJ, Buly R, MillisMB. Débridement of the adult hip for femoroac-etabular impingement: indications and prelimi-nary clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;429:178–1815.Tanzer M, Noiseux N. Osseous abnormalities andearly osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;429:170–1776.Jäger M, Wild A, Westhoff B, Krauspe R. Femoro-acetabular impingement caused by a femoral os-seous head–neck bump deformity: clinical, radio-logical, and experimental results. J Orthop Sci2004; 9:256–2637.Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. Hip mor-phology influences the pattern of damage to the ac-etabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingementas a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J BoneJoint Surg Br 2005; 87:1012–10188.Ito K, Leunig M, Ganz R. Histopathologic fea-tures of the acetabular labrum in femoroacetabu-lar impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;429:262–2719.Wagner S, Hofstetter W, Chiquet M, et al. Early os-teoarthritic changes of human femoral head carti-lage subsequent to femoro-acetabular impinge-ment. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2003; 11:508–51810.Leunig M, Werlen S, Ungersböck A, Ito K, Ganz R.Evaluation of the acetabular labrum by MR arthrog-raphy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79:230–23411.Leunig M, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impinge-ment: a common cause of hip complaints leadingto arthrosis [in German]. Unfallchirurg 2005;108:9–1712.Ganz R, Gill TJ, Gautier E, Ganz K, Krügel N, Ber-lemann U. Surgical dislocation of the adult hip: atechnique with full access to femoral head and ac-etabulum without the risk of avascular necrosis. Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83:1119–112413.Drehmann F. Drehmann’s sign: a clinical exam-ination method in epiphysiolysis (slipping of theupper femoral epiphysis)—description of signs,aetiopathogenetic considerations, clinical expe-rience [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb1979; 117:333–34414.Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M.Comparison of six radiographic projections to as-sess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop 2006; 445:181–18515.Tannast M, Murphy SB, Langlotz F, Anderson SE,Siebenrock KA. Estimation of pelvic tilt on antero-posterior X-rays: a comparison of six parameters.Skeletal Radiol 2006; 35:149–15516.Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effectof pelvic inclination on determination of acetabularretroversion: a study on cadaver pelves. Clin Orthop 2003; 407:241–24817.Tannast M, Zheng G, Anderegg C, et al. Tilt androtation correction of acetabular version on pel-vic radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;438:182–19018.Eijer H, Leunig M, Mahomed MN, Ganz R.Crosstable lateral radiograph for screening of an-terior femoral head–neck offset in patients withfemoro-acetabular impingement. Hip Int 2001;11:37–4119.Lequesne M, de Sèze S. False profile of the pel-vis: a new radiographic incidence for the study ofthe hip—its use in dysplasias and different cox-opathies [in French]. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic1961; 28:643–65220.Williams PL. The skeleton of the lower limb. In:Williams PL, Warkick R, Dyson M, BannisterLH, eds. Gray’s anatomy. Edinburgh, Scotland:Churchill Livingstone, 1989:422–44621.Giori NJ, Trousdale RT. Acetabular retroversion isassociated with osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Or-thop Relat Res 2003; 417:263–26922.Murphy SB, Kijewski PK, Millis MB, Harless A.Acetabular dysplasia in the adolescent and youngadult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 261:214–22323.Murphy SB, Ganz R, Müller ME. The prognosis inuntreated dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am1995; 77:985–98924.Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral an-teversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip.J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81:1747–177025.Heyman CH, Herndon CH. Legg-Perthes dis-ease: a method for the measurement of the roent-genographic result. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1950;32:767–77826.Li PLS, Ganz R. Morphologic features of con-genital acetabular dysplasia. Clin Orthop RelatRes 2003; 416:245–25327.Reynolds D, Lucac J, Klaue K. Retroversion of theacetabulum: a cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg 1999; 81:281–28828.Siebenrock KA, Schöniger R, Ganz R. Anteriorfemoro-acetabular impingement due to acetabularretroversion and its treatment by periacetabular os-teotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85:278–28629.Mast JW, Brunner RL, Zebrack J. Recognizing ac-etabular version in the radiographic presentation ofhip dysplasia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;418:48–5330.Myers SR, Eijer H, Ganz R. Anterior femoro-ace-tabular impingement after periacetabular osteot-omy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; 363:93–9931.Dora C, Mascard E, Mladenov K, Seringe R. Ret-roversion of the acetabular dome after Salter andTriple pelvic osteotomy for congenital dislocationof the hip. J Pediatr Orthop 2002; 11:34–4032.Schmid MR, Nötzli HP, Zanetti M, Wyss TF,Hodler J. Cartilage lesions in the hip: diagnosticeffectiveness of MR arthrography. Radiology2002; 226:382–38633.Tannast M, Langlotz U, Siebenrock KA, et al.Anatomic referencing of cup orientation in totalhip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;436:144–15034.Zilber S, Lazennec JY, Gorin M, Saillant G. Varia-tions of caudal, central and cranial acetabular ante-version according to the tilt of the pelvis. Surg Ra-diol Anat 2004; 26:462–46535.Watanabe W, Sato K, Itoi E, Yang K, Watanabe H.Posterior pelvic tilt in patients with decreased lum-bar lordosis decreases acetabular femoral head cov-ering. Orthopaedics 2002; 25:321–32436.Ito K, Minka MA, Leunig M, Werlen S, Ganz R.Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-ef-fect: an MRI based quantitative study of the fem-oral head–neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83:171–17637.Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stöcklin CH, Schmid MR,Treiber K, Hodler J. The contour of the femoralhead–neck junction as a predictor for the risk of an-terior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:556–56038.Beck M, Leunig M, Parvizi J, Boutier V, Wyss D,Ganz R. Anterior femoroacetabular impingement.Part II. Midterm results of surgical treatment. Orthop Relat Res 2004; 418:67–7339.Stulberg SD, Cordell LD, Harris WH, RamseyPL, MacEwen GD. Unrecognized childhood hipdisease: a major cause of idiopathic osteoarthritisof the hip. In: The hip: proceedings of the thirdmeeting of the Hip Society. St. Louis, MO:Mosby, 1975:212–22840.Harris WH. Etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip.Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 213:20–3341.Resnick D. The “tilt deformity” of the femoralhead in osteoarthritis of the hip: a poor indicatorof previous epiphysiolysis. Clin Radiol 1976;27:355–36342.Siebenrock KA, Wahab KHA, Kalhor M, LeunigM, Ganz R. Abnormal extension of the femoralhead epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Orthop Relat Res 2004; 418:54–6043.Leunig M, Casillas MM, Hamlet M, et al. Slippedcapital femoral epiphysis: early mechanical dam-age to the acetabular cartilage by a prominentfemoral metaphysis. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:370–375 Tannast et al.AJR:188, June 200744.Goodman DA, Feighan JE, Smith AD, Latimer B,Buly RL, Cooperman DR. Subclinical slippedcapital femoral epiphysis: relationship to os-teoarthrosis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am1997; 79:1489–149745.Leunig M, Fraitzl CR, Ganz R. Early damage to theacetabular cartilage in slipped capital femoral epi-physis: therapeutic consequences [in German]. thopäde 2002; 31:894–-89946.Snow S, Keret D, Scarangella S, Bowen J. Anteriorimpingement of the femoral head: a late phenome-non of Legg-Calvé-Perthes’ disease. J Pediatr Or-thop 1993; 13:286–28947.Strehl A, Ganz R. Anterior femoroacetabular im-pingement after healed femoral neck fractures [inGerman]. Unfallchirurg 2005; 108:263–27348.Tschauner C, Fock CM, Hofmann S, Raith J. Rota-tional abnormalities of the hip joint [in German].Radiologe 2002; 42:457–46649.Murphy SB, Simon SR, Kijewski PK, WilkinsonRH, Griscom T. Femoral anteversion. J Bone JointSurg Am 1987; 69:1169–117650.Millis MB, Kim YJ, Kocher MS. Hip joint-preserv-ing surgery for the mature hip: the Children’s Hos-pital experience. Orthopaedic Journal at HarvardMedical School 2004; 6:84–8751.Leunig M, Beck M, Kalhor M, Kim YJ, WerlenS, Ganz R, Juxtaarticular cysts at the antero-superior femoral neck: high prevalence in hipswith femoro-acetabular impingement. Radiology2005; 244:237–24652.Pitt MJ, Graham AR, Shipman JH, Birkby W. Her-niation pit of the femoral neck. 1982;138:1115–112153.Leunig M, Podeszwa D, Beck M, Werlen S, GanzR. Magnetic resonance arthrography of labral dis-orders in hips with dysplasia and impingement. Orthop Relat Res 2004; 418:74–8054.Lavigne M, Parvizi J, Beck M, Siebenrock KA,Ganz R, Leunig M. Anterior femoroacetabular im-pingement. Part I: Techniques of joint-preservingsurgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 418:61–6655.Wettstein M, Dienst M. Hip arthroscopy for femo-roacetabular impingement [in German]. Orthopäde2006; 35:85–93 FOR YOUR INFORMATION This article is available for CME credit. See www.arrs.org for more information.