Advertisement

Ultrasound Demonstrates Potential in Identifying Proximal Femoral Morphology Before and After Cam Resection: A Cadaveric Study

Published:October 27, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.10.015

      Purpose

      (1) To compare alpha angles measured on fluoroscopy with those measured on ultrasound pre- and postosteoplasty and (2) to determine whether ultrasound can adequately assess cam deformity correction.

      Methods

      Twelve full-body specimens (20 hips) were analyzed. Images using fluoroscopy and ultrasound were captured of the operative hip with the hip in 6 consistent positions: 3 views in hip extension (neutral [N], 30° internal rotation [IR], and 30° external rotation [ER]) and 3 views in hip flexion of 50° (neutral [F-N], 40° external rotation [F-ER40], and 60° external rotation [F-ER60]). A curved-array ultrasound transducer probe was used with the transducer placed in line with the femoral neck to evaluate the proximal femoral morphology. An open femoral osteoplasty using an anterior approach was performed. Fluoroscopy and ultrasound were again used to capture images with the hip in the same 6 positions. Bland–Altman plots were used to determine whether fluoroscopic and ultrasound alpha angles agreed at each position. Independent t-tests were used to compare the alpha angles between the 2 modalities at each position, and paired t-tests were used to compare preoperative and postoperative alpha angles at each position.

      Results

      No significant differences between the alpha angle on fluoroscopy and ultrasound at all 6 positions were appreciated preosteoplasty. The mean preoperative alpha angle on ultrasound in each position was as follows: N (55.4° ± 5.9° vs 43.0° ± 2.1°), IR (55.1° ± 5.3° vs 43.9° ± 5.5°), ER (58.6° ± 5.6° vs 42.8° ± 3.0°), F-N (53.9° ± 5.5° vs 41.6° ± 3.3°), F-ER40 (55.5° ± 4.6° vs 41.5° ± 2.7°), and F-ER60 (57.9° ± 6.5° vs 41.2° ± 4.2°). The mean preoperative and postoperative alpha angle on fluoroscopy in each position were as follows: N (56.0 ± 12.8° vs 43.1 ± 2.1°), IR (54.1 ± 13.4° vs 41.9 ± 2.9°), ER (61.2 ± 11.0° vs 44.2 ± 1.9°), F-N (57.9 ± 10.6° vs 44.0 ± 2.3°), F-ER40 (59 ± 8.2° vs 42 ± 2.2°), and F-ER60 (55 ± 7.6° vs 41.1 ± 2.6°). Postosteoplasty, there was no significant difference between the mean alpha angle on fluoroscopy versus ultrasound in any position except F-N (44.0 ± 2.3 vs 41.6 ± 3.3, P = .015). Bland–Altman plots showed a high level of agreement between alpha angle values on fluoroscopy and ultrasound at all positions pre- and postosteoplasty. There was a significant reduction in alpha angle measured on ultrasound and fluoroscopy at each position following osteoplasty. There were no significant differences in the delta of the pre- and postosteoplasty alpha angle measurements between fluoroscopy and ultrasound.

      Conclusions

      Ultrasound is a useful tool for assessing a cam deformity in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and for determining adequate resection of a cam deformity intraoperatively.

      Clinical Relevance

      Due to the inherent limitations and risks of the fluoroscopy, it is worth evaluating other nonionizing imaging modalities. Ultrasound has potential to be an accessible, cost-effective, and safe imaging modality that lacks radiation and is commonly used for intra-articular hip injections and dynamic examination of the hip.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Beck E.C.
        • Kunze K.N.
        • Chahla J.
        • Rasio J.
        • Nho S.J.
        Defining the clinically meaningful outcomes for arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at minimum 5-year follow-up.
        Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 901-907
        • Hoit G.
        • Whelan D.B.
        • Ly P.
        • Saskin R.
        • Atrey A.
        • Khoshbin A.
        Conversion to total hip arthroplasty after hip arthroscopy: A cohort-based survivorship study with a minimum of 2-year follow-up.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021; 29: 885-893
        • Domb B.G.
        • Chen S.L.
        • Go C.C.
        • et al.
        Predictors of clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy: 5-year follow-up analysis of 1038 patients.
        Am J Sports Med. 2020; 363546520968896
        • Menge T.J.
        • Briggs K.K.
        • Dornan G.J.
        • McNamara S.C.
        • Philippon M.J.
        Survivorship and outcomes 10 years following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: Labral debridement compared with labral repair.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99: 997-1004
        • Smart L.R.
        • Oetgen M.
        • Noonan B.
        • Medvecky M.
        Beginning hip arthroscopy: Indications, positioning, portals, basic techniques, and complications.
        Arthroscopy. 2007; 23: 1348-1353
        • Kelly B.T.
        • Weiland D.E.
        • Schenker M.L.
        • Philippon M.J.
        Arthroscopic labral repair in the hip: Surgical technique and review of the literature.
        Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 1496-1504
        • Shah A.
        • Nassri M.
        • Kay J.
        • et al.
        Intraoperative radiation exposure in hip arthroscopy: A systematic review.
        Hip Int. 2020; 30: 267-275
        • Byrd J.W.
        • Potts E.A.
        • Allison R.K.
        • Jones K.S.
        Ultrasound-guided hip injections: A comparative study with fluoroscopy-guided injections.
        Arthroscopy. 2014; 30: 42-46
        • Hashemi M.
        • Dadkhah P.
        • Taheri M.
        • Haji Seyed Abootorabi S.M.
        • Naderi-Nabi B.
        Ultrasound-guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; a single center fluoroscopic validation study.
        Bull Emerg Trauma. 2019; 7: 251-255
        • Evansa I.
        • Logina I.
        • Vanags I.
        • Borgeat A.
        Ultrasound versus fluoroscopic-guided epidural steroid injections in patients with degenerative spinal diseases: A randomised study.
        Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015; 32: 262-268
        • Lynch T.S.
        • Oshlag B.L.
        • Bottiglieri T.S.
        • Desai N.N.
        Ultrasound-guided hip injections.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019; 27: e451-e461
        • Lin Y.-T.
        • Wang T.-G.
        Ultrasonographic examination of the adult hip.
        J Medical Ultrasound. 2012; 20: 201-209
        • Jung J.Y.
        • Kim G.U.
        • Lee H.J.
        • Jang E.C.
        • Song I.S.
        • Ha Y.C.
        Diagnostic value of ultrasound and computed tomographic arthrography in diagnosing anterosuperior acetabular labral tears.
        Arthroscopy. 2013; 29: 1769-1776
        • Gao G.
        • Fu Q.
        • Cui L.
        • Xu Y.
        The diagnostic value of ultrasound in anterosuperior acetabular labral tear.
        Arthroscopy. 2019; 35: 2591-2597
        • Buck F.M.
        • Hodler J.
        • Zanetti M.
        • Dora C.
        • Pfirrmann C.W.
        Ultrasound for the evaluation of femoroacetabular impingement of the cam type. Diagnostic performance of qualitative criteria and alpha angle measurements.
        Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 167-175
        • Lerch S.
        • Kasperczyk A.
        • Warnecke J.
        • Berndt T.
        • Ruhmann O.
        Evaluation of Cam-type femoroacetabular impingement by ultrasound.
        Int Orthop. 2013; 37: 783-788
        • Mandema L.
        • Tak I.
        • Mooij B.
        • Groeneweg R.
        • Bakker E.
        • van Veldhoven P.
        Assessment of cam morphology of the hip with ultra sound imaging by physical therapists is reliable and valid.
        Phys Ther Sport. 2018; 32: 167-172
        • Robinson D.J.
        • Lee S.
        • Marks P.
        • Schneider M.E.
        Ultrasound determination of the femoral head–neck alpha angle.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018; 44: 495-501
        • Ross J.R.
        • Bedi A.
        • Stone R.M.
        • et al.
        Intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging to treat cam deformities: Correlation with 3-dimensional computed tomography.
        Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 1370-1376
        • Nötzli H.P.
        • Wyss T.F.
        • Stoecklin C.H.
        • Schmid M.R.
        • Treiber K.
        • Hodler J.
        The contour of the femoral head–neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84: 556-560
        • Lerch S.
        • Kasperczyk A.
        • Berndt T.
        • Rühmann O.
        Ultrasonography can quantify the extent of osteochondroplasty after treatment of Cam-type femoroacetabular impingement.
        Int Orthop. 2015; 39: 853-858
        • Weinrauch P.
        • Kermeci S.
        Ultrasound-assisted hip arthroscopy.
        Arthrosc Tech. 2014; 3: e255-e259
        • Keough T.
        • Wilson D.
        • Wong I.
        Ultrasound-guided portal placement for hip arthroscopy.
        Arthrosc Tech. 2016; 5: e851-e856