Imaging of impingement syndromes around the hip joint

Pain relief and good functional outcomes after hip endoscopy via posterior approach in patients with ischiofemoral impingement

PURPOSE

Ischiofemoral impingement is considered to be an uncommon and difficult pathology to diagnose with respect to hip pain etiology. The objective was to describe the clinical results of endoscopic lesser trochanter resection via a posterior approach in patients with Ischiofemoral impingement.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients with Ischiofemoral impingement, who underwent endoscopic resection of the lesser trochanter via a posterior approach, between 2015 and 2018. Clinical results were evaluated using the ischiofemoral impingement test, long-stride walking test, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and the Oxford scale to assess the strength of the iliopsoas muscle as well as the presence of complications. Preoperative and postoperative ischiofemoral space was measured to assess whether the resection of the lesser trochanter was adequate.

RESULTS

16 hips in 13 patients (mean age: 34.4 ± 12.1 years, 11 women) with a follow-up period between 24 and 59 months were included. Preoperative ischiofemoral space ranged from 6.4 to 22.4 mm, a measure > 17.0 mm was achieved in 15 hips without the presence of pain in IFI test and long-strides walking test. Function improved postoperatively, as reflected by a higher mean mHHS (preoperative: 44.6 ± 21.5, postoperative: 81.2 ± 15.1, p < 0.05). After surgery, the strength of the iliopsoas muscle was not decreased compared to the preoperative measure. Three complications were reported, including two cases that required revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of the lesser trochanter via posterior approach provides satisfactory outcomes with symptom relief and good functional results in patients with Ischiofemoral impingement. It is important to discuss the benefits and risks when offering this treatment choice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Evaluation of Cam Deformity on 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography With the Best-Fit Sphere Technique and the Alpha Angle Marking Method

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) is commonly used for the evaluation of cam deformity; however, it does not display the cam border directly.

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of the best-fit sphere (BFS) method and the alpha angle marking (AAM) method in 3D-CT evaluation for the cam border.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Twenty-six cases of cam deformity, confirmed during hip arthroscopy, were included in this study. All patients underwent a CT scan before surgery. Using multiplanar reconstruction, we obtained reformatted CT images of oblique axial, oblique coronal, and radial views. The alpha angle and femoral head-neck offset ratio (hnoR) were measured on the reformatted CT images. The cam area on 3D-CT was displayed in 4 different ways: by importing the markers from the reformatted CT images of the oblique axial view (cam-oa), the oblique coronal view (cam-oc), or the radial view (cam-r) using the AAM method, or by using the BFS method (cam-bfs). The sizes and locations of the displayed cams were compared.

RESULTS

All hips in this study had an alpha angle greater than 60° and an hnoR smaller than 0.17. The radial view measured a larger alpha angle and smaller hnoR than the oblique axial and coronal views (P < .05). The areas of cam-oa, cam-oc, cam-r, and cam-bfs were 161.47 ± 27.96, 89.78 ± 19.23, 241.73 ± 34.55, and 329.75 ± 42.73 mm², respectively, and their medial-to-lateral ranges along the acetabulum (clockface referents) were 12:30 to 03:00, 11:30 to 01:30, 11:30 to 03:00, and 11:00 to 03:30, respectively. Among the 4 displays, cam-bfs had the largest area and medial-to-lateral range (P < .05), and cam-r had the second largest area and range (P < .05). No significant difference in the mean distances from the acetabular rim to the superior border was detected among the 4 displays (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The cam area displayed by the BFS method on 3D-CT was larger than those evaluated by the AAM method. In the reformatted CT, the sizes and locations of cam deformity differed among the oblique axial, oblique coronal, and radial views, with the radial view showing the greatest area.