FEAR index in predicting treatment among patients with femoroacetabular impingement and hip dysplasia and the relationship of femoral version

How useful are indirect radiographic measurements of hip instability in borderline hip dysplasia? An MRI-based comparison to a healthy cohort

PURPOSE

Symptomatic hips with borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) morphology pose a challenge in differentiating stable from unstable hips. The current study aims to compare indirect radiographic signs of instability in a symptomatic BHD population to those in a healthy cohort.

METHODS

The study group consisted of patients with a lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) with values 18° ≤ LCEA < 25° who underwent corrective periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and reported an improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The comparison group consisted of a healthy cohort of athletes who did not complain of any hip-related symptoms and who had normal values of their hip morphological parameters (LCEA, acetabular index (AI°), alpha angle (α°), femoral version, acetabular version). Indirect signs of instability consisting of the femoro-epiphyseal acetabular roof index (FEAR), iliocapsularis-to-rectus-femoris (IC/RF) ratio and labral dimensions (height-to-length ratio) were assessed in both groups. Partial Pearson correlation, logistic multiple regression analysis and Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed to determine correlations, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of these signs to differentiate between healthy hips and BHD.

RESULTS

On binary logistic multiple regression analysis, the FEAR Index was the only independent predictor to differentiate between BHD and healthy hips (p < 0.001). The IC/RF ratio did not achieve significance. The calculated area under the curve (AUC) was 0.93 (0.87 - 0.99, CI 95%, p < 0.001) for the FEAR Index and 0.81 (0.70 - 0.92, CI 95%, p < 0.001) for the height-length ratio. Using the predefined cut-off values (dysplastic-FEAR Index ≥ 5° or labral height-to-length ratio ≤ 0.5), 27% sensitivity/100% specificity and 20% sensitivity/ 100% specificity, were achieved. ROC analysis provided the following new thresholds: FEAR Index ≥ -5° (73% sensitivity/97% specificity); labral height-to-length ratio ≤ 0.8 (70% sensitivity, 79% specificity).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, the FEAR index was an independent parameter that could differentiate between borderline dysplastic and asymptomatic hips. The previously published values for both the FEAR index and labral hypertrophy ratio had a poor sensitivity in differentiating symptomatic unstable BHD from healthy hips. The cut-off values of ≥ -5° (FEAR index) and ≤ 0.8 (labral height-to-length ratio) provided acceptable sensitivity and specificity when comparing to morphological healthy hips.

Femoro-Epiphyseal Acetabular Roof Index Values on Anteroposterior Pelvic Radiographs Significantly Increase With Hip Adduction and Decrease With Abduction

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of hip adduction and abduction on the femoro-epiphyseal acetabular roof (FEAR) index using conventional anteroposterior pelvic radiographs of patients with borderline hip dysplasia (BHD).

METHODS

Patients with BHD (lateral center edge angle [LCEA] with values of 18° ≤ LCEA <25°) and who were subject to periacetabular osteotoym were selected from a consecutive retrospective cohort from January 2009 to January 2016. The hip ad-/abduction (adduction handled as negative values) and the FEAR index (lateral opening angles handled as positive values) were measured in the initially standardized acquired pelvic radiographs. Thereafter, using surgical planning software, different degrees of hip adduction and abduction were simulated from 20° of adduction to 30° of abduction, and the FEAR index was measured at each position. Pearson correlation was used to identify a potential correlation between the hip ad-/abduction and the FEAR index.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine hips were included. Initial radiographs showed unintentional mean ad-/abduction of -5.3° ± 3.1° (range, -14° to 2°). The mean FEAR index at the initial ad-/abduction angle was -3.6° ± 7.2° (range, -18.0° to 16.0°) and was significantly different from neutral position (0° of ad-/abduction) -9.2° ± 7.0° (range, -27.0° to 10.0°) (P < .001). The FEAR index was negatively correlated to the hip ad-/abduction angle (r = 1, P < .001), with lower values for the FEAR index with the hip in abduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in FEAR index measurements were observed depending on hip ad-/abduction on pelvic radiographs. A linear change of the FEAR index of 5° per 5° of hip adduction or abduction could be demonstrated, with adduction resulting in increasing and abduction in decreasing values for the FEAR index.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

How Does Radiographic Acetabular Morphology Change Between the Supine and Standing Positions in Asymptomatic Volunteers?

BACKGROUND

The radiographic appearance of the acetabulum differs between the supine and standing positions in patients with hip conditions. The pelvis undergoes a change in tilt when transitioning between positions, resulting in variations in version and acetabular coverage. However, the extent of these variations in well-functioning volunteers without compensatory patterns caused by pain is unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We performed this study to (1) quantify differences in radiographic acetabular measurements when transitioning between supine and standing among asymptomatic, well-functioning volunteers; (2) assess differences in pelvic tilt between positions; and (3) test whether individual anatomic parameters are associated with the change in tilt.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center study performed at an academic referral center. One hundred volunteers (students, staff, and patients with upper limb injuries) with well-functioning hips (Oxford hip score ≥ 45) were invited to participate. A total of 45% (45) of them were female, their mean age was 37 ± 14 years, and their mean BMI was 25 ± 2 kg/m2. Supine and standing AP pelvic radiographs were analyzed to determine numerous acetabular parameters including the lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), acetabular index (AI), anterior wall index (AWI), posterior wall index (PWI), crossover sign (COS), crossover ratio (COR), posterior wall sign (PWS), ischial spine sign (ISS), and femoroepiphyseal acetabular roof index (FEAR), as well as pelvic parameters including the sacrofemoral-pubic angle (SFP). Spinopelvic parameters were measured from lateral standing spinopelvic radiographs. Radiographic measurements were performed by one hip preservation research fellow and a fellowship-trained staff surgeon. Differences in parameters were determined, and correlations between postural differences and morphological parameters were tested. Clinically important differences were defined as a difference greater than 3° for acetabular angle measurements and 0.03 for acetabular ratio measurements, based on previous studies.

RESULTS

Lateral coverage angles did not show a clinically important difference between positions. AWI decreased when standing (0.47 ± 0.13 versus 0.41 ± 0.14; p < 0.001), whereas acetabular retroversion signs were more pronounced when supine (COS: 34% [34 of 100], PWS: 68% [68 of 100], and ISS: 34% [34 of 100] versus COS: 19% [19 of 100], PWS: 38% [38 of 100], and ISS: 14% [14 of 100]; all p values < 0.05). Pelvic tilt increased by a mean of 4° ± 4° when standing, but the range of change was from -15° to 7°. The change in AWI (ρ = 0.47; p < 0.001), PWI (ρ = -0.45; p < 0.001), and COR (ρ = 0.52; p < 0.001) between positions correlated with ΔSFP. Volunteers with spinal imbalance (pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis > 10°) demonstrated greater change in pelvic tilt (ΔSFP) (-7° ± 3° versus -4° ± 4°; p = 0.02) and a greater reduction in AWI (by 10%). These volunteers demonstrated reduced standing lumbar lordosis angles (45° ± 11° versus 61° ± 10°; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Acetabular version increases from supine to standing because of an increase in pelvic tilt. The change in pelvic tilt between positions exhibited substantial variability. Individuals with reduced lumbar lordosis for a given pelvic incidence value demonstrated greater pelvic mobility. No features on supine radiographs were associated with the change in tilt.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Performing standing radiographs in addition to supine views can help identify aberrant physiologic patterns in patients with diagnostic dilemmas and might thus help with management. Normative data of pelvic tilt change can help clinicians identify patients who demonstrate excessive change in tilt that contributes to abnormal hip pathomechanics.

The Radiographic Femoroepiphyseal Acetabular Roof Index Is a Reliable and Reproducible Diagnostic Tool in Patients Undergoing Hip-Preservation Surgery: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess the utility of the femoroepiphyseal acetabular roof (FEAR) index as a diagnostic tool in hip-preservation surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from database inception until May 2022 for literature addressing the utility of the FEAR index in patients undergoing hip-preservation surgery, and the results are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

Overall, there were a total of 11 studies comprising 1,458 patients included in this review. The intraobserver agreement for the FEAR index was reported by 3 of 11 studies (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.86-0.99), whereas the interobserver agreement was reported by 8 of 11 studies (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.776-1). Among the 5 studies that differentiated between hip instability and hip impingement, the mean FEAR index in 319 patients in the instability group ranged from 3.01 to 13.3°, whereas the mean FEAR index in 239 patients in the impingement group ranged from -10 to -0.77° and the mean FEAR index in 105 patients in the control group ranged from -13 to -7.7°. Three studies defined a specific cutoff value for the FEAR index, with 1 study defining a cutoff value of 5°, which correctly predicted treatment decision between periacetabular osteotomy versus osteochondroplasty 79% of the time with an AUC of 0.89, whereas another defined a cutoff of 2°, which correctly predicted treatment 90% of the time and the last study set a threshold of 3°, which provided an AUC of 0.86 for correctly predicting treatment decision.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that the FEAR index has a high agreement and consistent application, making it a useful diagnostic tool in hip-preservation surgery particularly in patients with borderline dysplastic hips. However, given the variability in FEAR index cutoff values across studies, there is no absolute consensus value that dictates treatment decision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Systematic Review of Level II-IV studies.