Spinopelvic Parameters Do Not Predict the Sagittal Orientation of the Acetabulum

Editorial Commentary: Physical Therapy Alone May Not Successfully Treat Patients With Hip Pain and Large α Angles or Decreased Femoral Anteversion Combined With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Understanding the relation between spinopelvic (lumbopelvic) tilt and femoracetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is complex, and determining the optimal patient parameters that lead to successful nonoperative management is vital. Physical therapy (PT) focusing on core and posterior chain strengthening is often successful. PT can change the posterior tilt of the pelvis by 5° to 10°, allowing increased range of motion (ROM) and decreased impingement of the hip. However, PT does not change cam anatomy. Thus, PT alone may not sufficiently increase ROM in patients with cam-type impingement and large α angles or limited femoral anteversion. Pelvic compensation may lead to successful nonoperative management of FAIS, but not in all patients. Large-cam, high-flexion athletes with chronic hip pain should try PT. Yet, while some patients with large cam lesions may improve without surgery if femoral version and/or pelvic tilt ROM can be increased, surgery should not be excessively delayed in patients with poor prognostic factors for nonoperative management.

Can a Computational Model Predict the Effect of Lesion Location on Cam-type Hip Impingement?

BACKGROUND

The Warwick consensus defined femoroacetabular impingement syndrome as a motion-related clinical disorder of the hip with a triad of symptoms, clinical signs, and imaging findings representing symptomatic premature contact between the proximal femur and acetabulum. Several factors appear to cause labral and cartilage damage, including joint shape and orientation and patient activities. There is a lack of tools to predict impingement patterns in a patient across activities. Current computational modeling tools either measure pure ROM of the joint or include complexity that reduces reliability and increases time to achieve a solution.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of a low computational cost approach to combining cam-type hip shape and multiple hip motions for predicting impingement. Specifically, we sought to determine (1) the potential to distinguish impingement in individual hip shapes by analyzing the difference between a cam lesion at the anterior femoral neck and one located at the superior femoral neck; (2) sensitivity to three aspects of hip alignment, namely femoral neck-shaft angle, femoral version angle, and pelvic tilt; and (3) the difference in impingement measures between the individual activities in our hip motion dataset.

METHODS

A model of the shape and alignment of a cam-type impinging hip was created and used to describe two locations of a cam lesion on the femoral head-neck junction (superior and anterior) based on joint shape information available in prior studies. Sensitivity to hip alignment was assessed by varying three aspects from a baseline (typical alignment described in prior studies), namely, femoral neck-shaft angle, femoral version, and pelvic tilt. Hip movements were selected from an existing database of 18 volunteers performing 13 activities (10 male, eight female; mean age 44 ± 19 years). A subset was selected to maximize variation in the range of joint angles and maintain a consistent number of people performing each activity, which resulted in nine people per activity, including at least three of each sex. Activities included pivoting during walking, squatting, and golf swing. All selected hip motion cases were applied to each hip shape model. For the first part of the study, the number of motion cases in which impingement was predicted was recorded. Quantitative analyses of the depth of penetration of the cam lesion into the acetabular socket and qualitative observations of impingement location were made for each lesion location (anterior and superior). In the second part of the study, in which we aimed to test the sensitivity of the findings to hip joint orientation, full analysis of both cam lesion locations was repeated for three modified joint orientations. Finally, the results from the first part of the analysis were divided by activity to understand how the composition of the activity dataset affected the results.

RESULTS

The two locations of cam lesion generated impingement in a different percentage of motion cases (anterior cam: 56% of motion cases; superior cam: 13% of motion cases) and different areas of impingement in the acetabulum, but there were qualitatively similar penetration depths (anterior cam: 6.8° ± 5.4°; superior cam: 7.9° ± 5.8°). The most substantial effects of changing the joint orientation were a lower femoral version angle for the anterior cam, which increased the percentage of motion cases generating impingement to 67%, and lower neck-shaft angle for the superior cam, which increased the percentage of motion cases generating impingement to 37%. Flexion-dominated activities (for example, squatting) only generated impingement with the anterior cam. The superior cam generated impingement during activities with high internal-external rotation of the joint (for example, the golf swing).

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrated the capability of a simple, rapid computational tool to assess impingement of a specific cam-type hip shape (under 5 minutes for more than 100 motion cases). To our knowledge, this study is the first to do so for a large set of motion cases representing a range of activities affecting the hip, and could be used in planning surgical bone removal.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The results of this study imply that patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with cam lesions on the superior femoral head-neck junction may experience impinging during motions that are not strongly represented by current physical diagnostic tests. The use of this tool for surgical planning will require streamlined patient-specific hip shape extraction from imaging, model sensitivity testing, evaluation of the hip activity database, and validation of impingement predictions at an individual patient level.

Assessment of the acetabular version in relation to sagittal sacropelvic parameters

The relationship between acetabular orientation and the sacropelvic parameters is of interest to both hip and spine surgeons as it is increasingly clear disease in one area can affect the other, including the outcome of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to further clarify the relationship between measures of acetabular orientation and sacropelvic parameters. This study utilized a trauma CT database. A total of 100 scans on adult patients without overt hip or spinal disease were included. Measures of acetabular orientation included the acetabular sagittal angle (ASA) which uses the anterior pelvic plane as a reference and sacroacetabular angle which uses the sacral endplate as a reference (SA); spinopelvic parameters include the pelvic incidence (PI), sacral anatomic orientation (SAO) and pelvic thickness (PTH). Mean age 48.2 years (SD 18.0), 62% male. Mean values were: PI 50.5, SAO 50.7, PTH 106.4 mm, ASA-right 62.1, ASA-left 64.0, SA-right 67.2, and SA-left 65.4. There was substantial correlation between PI and SA (r = 0.628-0.630) and also between SAO and SA (-0.657 to -0.692). Liner regression determined SA was best predicted by the model: SA = 81 × SAO + 0.36 × PI. When using the anterior pelvic plane as a reference to define acetabular orientation, there does not appear to be any significant relationship between the sagittal orientation of the acetabulum and sacropelvic parameters. Using the sacrum as a common point of reference allows some further understanding of the interplay between pelvic parameters and the orientation of the acetabulum.