Femoral Version May Impact Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes in Select Patient Populations: A Systematic Review

Computed tomography-based automated 3D measurement of femoral version: Validation against standard 2D measurements in symptomatic patients

To validate 3D methods for femoral version measurement, we asked: (1) Can a fully automated segmentation of the entire femur and 3D measurement of femoral version using a neck based method and a head-shaft based method be performed? (2) How do automatic 3D-based computed tomography (CT) measurements of femoral version compare to the most commonly used 2D-based measurements utilizing four different landmarks? Retrospective study (May 2017 to June 2018) evaluating 45 symptomatic patients (57 hips, mean age 18.7 ± 5.1 years) undergoing pelvic and femoral CT. Femoral version was assessed using four previously described methods (Lee, Reikeras, Tomczak, and Murphy). Fully-automated segmentation yielded 3D femur models used to measure femoral version via femoral neck- and head-shaft approaches. Mean femoral version with 95% confidence intervals, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated, and Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Automatic 3D segmentation was highly accurate, with mean dice coefficients of 0.98 ± 0.03 and 0.97 ± 0.02 for femur/pelvis, respectively. Mean difference between 3D head-shaft- (27.4 ± 16.6°) and 3D neck methods (12.9 ± 13.7°) was 14.5 ± 10.7° (p < 0.001). The 3D neck method was closer to the proximal Lee (-2.4 ± 5.9°, -4.4 to 0.5°, p = 0.009) and Reikeras (2 ± 5.6°, 95% CI: 0.2 to 3.8°, p = 0.03) methods. The 3D head-shaft method was closer to the distal Tomczak (-1.3 ± 7.5°, 95% CI: -3.8 to 1.1°, p = 0.57) and Murphy (1.5 ± 5.4°, -0.3 to 3.3°, p = 0.12) methods. Automatic 3D neck-based-/head-shaft methods yielded femoral version angles comparable to the proximal/distal 2D-based methods, when applying fully-automated segmentations.

Increased combined anteversion is associated with larger posterior acetabular rim ossification in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome

PURPOSE

(1) To determine the prevalence, magnitude and distribution pattern of acetabular rim ossification in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and (2) to determine the association between acetabular rim ossification and rotational abnormalities of the hip.

METHODS

Patients underwent hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS at our institute between January 2021 and May 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if preoperative computed tomography (CT) images of the operated hip and ipsilateral distal femur were available for the measurement of femoral and acetabular anteversion. The presence and size of acetabular rim ossification were evaluated on coronal CT sections for the superior half of the acetabulum on each clockface location. The associations between acetabular rim ossification and radiographic parameters of hip rotational morphology were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 214 hips were included. Acetabular rim ossification was found in 167 hips (78%) and the most common locations were 10 and 11 o'clock. Patients presenting with acetabular rim ossification had a mean size of 4.6 ± 1.6 mm. It was the largest at 9 o'clock position (4.9 ± 2.2 mm), with a decreasing trend in size from posterior to anterior. Logistics regression analysis found age was associated with the occurrence of posterior ossification (p = 0.002). Linear regression analysis found age (p = 0.049) and male sex (p < 0.001) were significantly correlated with the size of ossification. Patients with increased cranial combined anteversion had larger posterior ossification than patients with normal and decreased cranial combined anteversion (4.2 ± 2.9 vs. 3.1 ± 2.5 mm, p = 0.016; 4.2 ± 2.9 vs. 2.5 ± 2.4 mm, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Increased combined anteversion is associated with greater posterior acetabular rim ossification. The presence and size of acetabular rim ossification are positively associated with older age and male sex.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

How Is Variability in Femoral and Acetabular Version Associated With Presentation Among Young Adults With Hip Pain?

BACKGROUND

Acetabular and femoral version contribute to hip pain in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) or dysplasia. However, definitions and measurement methods of femoral version have varied in different studies, resulting in different "normal" values being used by clinicians for what should be the same anatomic measurement. This could result in discrepant or even inappropriate treatment recommendations.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In patients undergoing hip preservation surgery, (1) what is the range of acetabular and femoral version at presentation, and how much do two commonly used measurement techniques (those of Murphy and Reikerås) differ? (2) How are differences in acetabular and femoral version associated with clinical factors and outcomes scores at the time of presentation?

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of data gathered in a longitudinally maintained database of patients undergoing hip preservation at a tertiary care referral center. Between June 2020 and December 2021, 282 hips in 258 patients were treated for an isolated labral tear (9% [26 hips]), hip dysplasia (21% [59 hips]), FAI (52% [147 hips]), mixed FAI and dysplasia (17% [47 hips]), or pediatric deformity (slipped capital femoral head epiphysis or Perthes disease; 1% [3 hips]) with hip arthroscopy (71% [200 hips]), periacetabular osteotomy (26% [74 hips]), surgical hip dislocation (2.5% [7 hips]), or femoral derotation osteotomy (0.5% [1 hip]). We considered those with complete radiographic data (CT including the pelvis and distal femur) and patient-reported outcome scores as potentially eligible. Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 or older than 55 years (5 hips, 3 patients), signs of hip osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade ≥ 2; 0), pediatric deformity (slipped capital femoral head epiphysis or Perthes disease; 3 hips, 3 patients), previous femoral or acetabular osteotomy (2 hips, 2 patients), avascular necrosis of the femoral head (0), history of neuromuscular disorder (Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; 3 hips, 3 patients) or rheumatoid disease (ankylosing spondylitis; 1 hip, 1 patient), and when CT did not include the knees (19 hips, 19 patients). Based on these criteria, 249 hips in 227 patients were included. Of patients with bilateral symptomatic hips, one side was randomly selected for inclusion, leaving 227 hips in 227 patients for further analysis. The patients' median age (range) was 34 years (19 to 55 years), the median BMI (range) was 27 kg/m 2 (16 to 55 kg/m 2 ), and 63% (144) were female; they were treated with hip arthroscopy (in 74% [168]) or periacetabular osteotomy (in 23% [52]). Patients underwent a CT scan to measure acetabular version and femoral version using the Murphy (low < 10°; normal: 10° to 25°; high > 25°) or Reikerås (low < 5°; normal: 5° to 20°; high > 20°) technique. The McKibbin index was calculated (low: < 20°; normal: 20° to 50°; high > 50°). Based on the central acetabular version and femoral version as measured by Murphy, hips were grouped according to their rotational profile into four groups: unstable rotational profile: high (high acetabular version with high femoral version) or moderate (high acetabular version with normal femoral version or normal acetabular version with high femoral version); normal rotational profile (normal acetabular version with femoral version); compensatory rotational profile (low acetabular version with high femoral version or high acetabular version with low femoral version); and impingement rotational profile (low acetabular version with low femoral version): high (low acetabular version with low femoral version) or moderate (low acetabular version with normal femoral version or normal acetabular version with low femoral version). Radiographic assessments were manually performed on digitized images by two orthopaedic residents, and 25% of randomly selected measurements were repeated by the senior author, a fellowship-trained hip preservation and arthroplasty surgeon. Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities were calculated using the correlation coefficient with a two-way mixed model, showing excellent agreement for Murphy technique measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.908 [95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.97]) and Reikerås technique measurements (ICC 0.938 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.97]). Patient-reported measures were recorded using the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) (0 to 100; worse to best).

RESULTS

The mean acetabular version was 18° ± 6°, and mean femoral version was 24° ± 12° using the Murphy technique and 12° ± 11° with the Reikerås method. Eighty percent (181 of 227) of hips had normal acetabular version, 42% (96 of 227) to 63% (142 to 227) had normal femoral version per Murphy and Reikerås, respectively, and 67% (152 to 227) had a normal McKibbin index. Patients with an impingement profile (low acetabular version or femoral version) were older (39 ± 9 years) than patients with an unstable (high acetabular version or femoral version; 33 ± 9 years; p = 0.004), normal (33 ± 9 years; p = 0.02), or compensatory (high acetabular version with low femoral version or vice versa; 33 ± 7 years; p = 0.08) rotational profile. Using the Murphy technique, femoral version was 12° greater than with the Reikerås method (R 2 0.85; p < 0.001). There were no differences in iHOT-33 score between different groups (impingement: 32 ± 17 versus normal 35 ± 21 versus compensated: 34 ± 20 versus unstable: 31 ± 17; p = 0.40).

CONCLUSION

Variability in femoral version is twice as large as acetabular version. Patients with an impingement rotational profile were older than patients with a normal, compensatory, or unstable profile, indicating there are other variables not yet fully accounted for that lead to earlier pain and presentation in these groups. Important differences exist between measurement methods. This study shows that different measurement methods for femoral anteversion result in different numbers; if other authors compare their results to those of other studies, they should use equations such as the one suggested in this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, prognostic study.

Discrepancies in Magnetic Resonance- and Computed Tomography-Based Femoral Version Measurements Despite Strong Correlations

PURPOSE

To determine the correlation and classification consistency of femoral version measurements between magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomography (CT) using 4 commonly used measurement methods.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) who received preoperative CT and MR imaging assessment of the surgical hip and ipsilateral distal femur. Femoral version was measured using the Murphy method, the oblique method, the Reikerås method, and the Lee method. Intra- and inter-rater agreements were calculated. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis were performed for measurements using different imaging modalities and measurement methods. Femoral version measurements within the lower quartile, the middle 2 quartiles, and the upper quartile were classified into different groups based on their percentile within the sample population. Classification consistency rates between modalities and methods were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (39.4 ± 9.1 years; 32 female) were included for analysis. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were high for all modalities and methods (intrarater intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] range, 0.963-0.993; inter-rater ICC range, 0.871-0.960). MR- and CT-based femoral version measurements showed strong correlations for all methods, with the Lee method demonstrating the strongest association (r = 0.904), while the oblique method exhibited the lowest correlation (r = 0.684) (all P < .001). MR-based measurements were smaller than CT-based measurements, with mean differences ranging from 4.5° to 10.3°. Classification consistency between MR and CT ranged from 51% to 74%, whereas the consistency between different measurement methods ranged from 68% to 85%.

CONCLUSIONS

While strong correlations were observed between MR- and CT-based femoral version measurements, MR-based measurements were significantly smaller than their CT counterparts. Classification consistency between the modalities was moderate to high. Measurements between different methods showed strong correlations with high consistency rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case series.

Editorial Commentary: Magnetic Resonance Imaging May Underestimate Hip Femoral Version Versus Computed Tomography Scan: Both May Be Optimized Using 3-Dimensional Imaging

Hip arthroscopy has become increasingly popular in the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Careful preoperative planning including evaluation of acetabular and femoral version is necessary to optimize outcomes. Increased femoral anteversion has been associated with microinstability, and conversely, decreased femoral version may predispose to impingement. Computed tomography (CT) is considered the gold standard for femoral version measurements and preoperative planning. However, with recent advancements in technology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown comparable measurements to CT imaging. In terms of advantages and disadvantages, CT requires radiation, albeit "low dose." MRI has a longer acquisition time, and movement of the patient may affect image quality and subsequent accuracy. MRI generally underestimates true version, probably as a result of patient positioning. Three-dimensional imaging could resolve this issue and may become the gold standard for both CT and MRI.

Femoral Anteversion Angle as a Predictor of Anterior Hip Labral Length in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Background

The relationship between hip rotational abnormalities and hip labral size has not been fully investigated.

Purposes

To (1) examine the correlation between rotational abnormalities of the hip and labral size, while also identifying other predictive values for hip labral size, and (2) explore whether femoral torsion will lead to increased labral size.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 180 patients (180 hips) with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) (mean age, 36.81 ± 10.17 years; 67 male, 113 female) who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery between January 2021 and May 2022 were included. The femoral version (FV), acetabular version, and combined version angles were measured on computed tomography, and the labral length and height at the 12-o'clock and 3-o'clock positions were measured on magnetic resonance imaging. The hips were categorized into 3 groups based on FV angle: small (SFV; <10°); moderate (MFV; ≥10° and ≤20°), and large (LFV; >20°), and group comparisons were performed. Linear correlation and regression analysis were employed.

Results

Predictive factors for labral length were FV angle (β = 0.298; P = .02), sex (β = -0.302; P < .001), and age (β = -0.169; P = .016) at 3 o'clock and lateral center-edge angle (LCEA; β = -0.208; P = .005) and age (β = -0.186; P = .011) at 12 o'clock. FV angle was positively correlated with labral length at 3 o'clock (r = 0.267; P < .001) and negatively correlated with age (r = -0.222; P = .003) and female sex (r = -0.202; P = .006). LCEA (r = -0.227; P = .002) and age (r = -0.205; P = .006) were negatively correlated with labral length at 12 o'clock. Labral length at 3 o'clock was significantly different between the LFV (n = 49 hips), MFV (n = 65 hips), and SFV (n = 66 hips) groups (9.85 ± 2.28, 8.89 ± 2.44, and 8.30 ± 2.05 mm, respectively; P = .027 for LFV vs MFV; P < .001 for LFV vs SFV).

Conclusion

Patients with FAIS who exhibited a higher FV angle were at a greater likelihood of having a larger anterior labral length. Increased femoral anteversion and decreased LCEA, male sex, and younger age were significantly associated with longer hip labral length.

The Principles of Hip Joint Preservation

The 3 primary factors involved with preservation of the hip joint are femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), hip dysplasia, and femoral torsion abnormalities. Each of these factors affects the health of the acetabular labrum and femoroacetabular cartilage. The appropriate surgical treatments for each of these factors include arthroscopic or open femoroplasty or acetabuloplasty for FAI, periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for acetabular dysplasia, and de-rotational femoral osteotomy for femoral torsion abnormalities. When evaluating patients with prearthritic hip conditions, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the various factors involved in hip joint preservation and, if surgery is indicated, surgeons should be sure to address all factors that need surgical treatment rather than focusing on the most obvious issue or injury (e.g., a labral tear). The purpose of this infographic is to illustrate the importance of the factors involved in hip joint preservation and the appropriate treatments for pathology in any of these factors.

Secondary Hip Labral Reconstruction Yields Inferior Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes to Primary Reconstruction Despite Comparable Intraoperative Labral Characteristics

PURPOSE

To compare intraoperative labral characteristics and minimum 2-year functional outcomes of allograft labral reconstruction in primary versus revision hip arthroscopy across multiple orthopaedic centers.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for patients with completed labral reconstruction surgeries from January 2014 to March 2023 with completed 2-year international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Age, sex, and major intraoperative variables also were collected. Patients were placed in cohorts based on whether their arthroscopic allograft labral reconstruction was a primary procedure or secondary procedure (reconstruction following failed hip arthroscopy). One-way analysis of variance was performed on continuous variables. χ2 test was performed on categorical variables. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) also was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 77 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and had complete information. The primary reconstruction group (n = 50) was significantly older than the secondary reconstruction group (n = 27) (47.5 ± 10.5 vs 39.1 ± 8.8 years; P = .001). In both cohorts, most patients had labral bruising, advanced labral degeneration, and/or grade III complexity of labral tearing. There was no difference in any recorded intraoperative findings (P = .160, P = .783, P = .357, respectively). Each cohort experienced significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores (P < .0001). However, patients undergoing secondary labral reconstruction reported inferior iHOT-12 scores (60.1 ± 29.2 vs 74.8 ± 27.0; P = .030). Patients undergoing primary reconstruction were more likely to reach MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB (92 vs 66.7%, P = .024; 68.0 vs 40.7%, P = .021; 76.0 vs 48.1%, P = .014, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary and secondary allograft labral reconstruction show clinical improvement, but primary reconstruction demonstrates better outcomes and greater percentage of patients reaching MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB than reconstruction in the revision setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic case-control study.

The Principles of Hip Joint Preservation

The three primary factors involved in preservation of the hip joint include femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), hip dysplasia/instability, and femoral torsion abnormalities. Each of these factors affects the health of the acetabular labrum and femoroacetabular cartilage. The appropriate surgical treatments for each of these factors include arthroscopic or open femoroplasty/acetabuloplasty for FAI, periacetabular osteotomy for hip dysplasia/instability, and derotational femoral osteotomy for femoral torsion abnormalities. When evaluating patients with prearthritic hip conditions, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the various factors involved in hip joint preservation and, if surgery is indicated, the surgeon should be sure to address all factors that need surgical treatment rather than focusing on the commonly diagnosed issue or visible injury, for example, a labral tear. If any of these factors is ignored, the hip joint may not thrive. The purpose of this review was to explain the importance of the most common factors involved in hip joint preservation and the appropriate surgical treatments for pathology in these factors.

Arthroscopy Honors 2023 Award Winning Publications and Authors

With earnest appreciation to the Arthroscopy Association of North America Education Foundation for its generous support for Arthroscopy's Annual Awards, we announce the 2023 publications determined to represent the best clinical research, basic science research, resident/fellow research, and systematic reviews published in 2023, as well as the most downloaded and most cited articles published 5 years ago. This year, we also present the inaugural award for the Most Viewed Arthroscopy Techniques article and video published 5 years ago, as well as our best Podcasts of 2023.

Effect of Differing Orientation and Magnitude of Femoral Torsion on Outcomes and Achievement of the MCID and PASS at 5 Years After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Femoral torsion measurements and outcomes are variable throughout the literature and have focused on short-term follow-up. However, there is a paucity of literature investigating clinically meaningful outcomes at midterm follow-up after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

PURPOSE

To quantify femoral version using computed tomography imaging in patients with FAIS and to explore the relationship between version abnormalities and 5-year outcomes after hip arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between January 2012 and November 2017 were identified. Patients were included if they had 5-year follow-up with completion of ≥1 patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and excluded if they had Tönnis grade >1, revision hip surgery, a concomitant hip procedure, a developmental disorder, or a lateral center-edge angle <20°. Torsion groups were defined as severe retrotorsion (<0°), moderate retrotorsion (0.1°-5°), normal torsion (5.1°-20°), moderate antetorsion (20.1°-25°), and severe antetorsion (>25.1°) based on computed tomography measurements. Patient characteristics were analyzed among the torsion cohorts, as were preoperative and 5-year PROs: Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool, visual analog scale for pain, and visual analog scale for satisfaction. Achievement rates of cohort-specific thresholds for the minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State were calculated and compared among cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 362 patients (244 female, 118 male; mean ± SD age, 33.1 ± 11.5 years; body mass index, 26.9 ± 17.8) met inclusion/exclusion criteria and were analyzed at a final mean follow-up of 64.3 ± 9.4 months (range, 53.5-115.5 months). Mean femoral torsion was 12.8°± 9.2°. The number of patients within each group was 20 for severe retrotorsion (torsion, -6.3°± 4.9°), 45 for moderate retrotorsion (2.7°± 1.3°), 219 for normal torsion (12.2°± 4.1°), 39 for moderate antetorsion (21.9°± 1.3°), and 39 for severe antetorsion (29.0°± 4.2°). No significant differences in age, body mass index, sex, smoking status, workers' compensation, psychiatric history, back pain, or physical activity were found among the torsional groups. All groups demonstrated significant improvements at 5 years postoperatively (P < .01 for all). All torsion subgroups demonstrated similar pre- to postoperative changes in PROs (P≥ .515) and PRO values at 5-year follow-up (P≥ .098). There were no significant differences in the achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (P≥ .422) or Patient Acceptable Symptom State (P≥ .161) for any of the PROs among the torsion groups.

CONCLUSION

The orientation and severity of femoral torsion at the time of hip arthroscopy for FAIS in this study's cohort did not affect the propensity for clinically meaningful outcome improvement at midterm follow-up.

Editorial Commentary: Evaluate for the Beighton Score and Additional Radiographic Signs of Instability Prior to Proceeding With Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Combined Borderline Hip Dysplasia and Excessive Femoral Anteversion

Femoral version abnormalities have been increasingly recognized as a key factor in the pathogenesis of nonarthritic hip pain. Excessive femoral anteversion (EFA), defined as femoral anteversion greater than 20°, has been postulated to create unstable alignment of the hip, which is exacerbated in patients with concomitant borderline hip dysplasia (BHD). The optimal treatment algorithm for hip pain in EFA-BHD patients remains debated, with some surgeons advocating against arthroscopic procedures in isolation owing to the combined instability due to the femoral and acetabular abnormalities. When determining the treatment approach for an EFA-BHD patient, clinicians should discern whether the patient is presenting with symptoms due to femoroacetabular impingement versus hip instability. When addressing symptomatic hip instability, clinicians are encouraged to evaluate for the Beighton score and additional radiographic factors (other than the lateral center-edge angle) suggestive of instability, such as a Tönnis angle greater than 10°, coxa valga, and deficient anterior or posterior acetabular wall coverage. Because the combination of these additional instability findings with EFA-BHD may portend an inferior outcome after arthroscopic treatment in isolation, an open procedure such as periacetabular osteotomy can be a more reliable treatment option for symptomatic hip instability in this cohort.