The normal value of alpha angle is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the alpha angle in asymptomatic volunteers versus patients who had undergone surgery for symptomatic cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and determine a diagnostic cut-off value for symptomatic cam impingement. This is a diagnostic test study. Cases were defined as those patients who had undergone surgery for symptomatic cam or mixed type FAI. Controls were defined as asymptomatic volunteers, with no history of hip pain who had undergone a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis for a non-joint or bone-related reason. In both groups, the alpha angle was measured in an oblique axial CT reconstruction of the femoral neck. A logistic regression model was first estimated and a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was then calculated. The diagnostic cut-off value selected was the one that maximizes sensitivity and specificity. Data were analysed from 38 consecutive cases of cam or mixed FAI and 101 controls. The average alpha angle was 67°(±12°) among cases and 48°°(±5°) among controls. An odds ratio of 1.28 [1.18–1.39] was obtained. A ROC curve of 0.96 [0.93–0.99] was calculated, and using an alpha angle of 57° as the diagnostic cut-off value, provided a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 95%. If a patient complains of hip pain and an alpha angle of 57° is found in CT, strongly suggest that cam impingement is causing the pain.

BackgroundLimited clinical data on real-world practice patterns are available for patients with metastatic/relapsed soft tissue sarcomas (STS). The primary objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns in patients with metastatic/relapsed STS following failure of prior chemotherapy by examining data collected from 2000 to 2011 from a major tertiary academic cancer center in the United States.MethodsMedical records, including community-based referral records, from a tertiary cancer center for adult patients with metastatic/relapsed STS with confirmed disease progression who commenced second-line treatment between January 1, 2000 and February 4, 2011, and with at least 3 months of follow-up data following second-line treatment initiation, were retrospectively reviewed. Overall survival, time to progression, and clinician-reported tumor response were collected.ResultsA total of 99 patients (leiomyosarcoma, n = 48; synovial cell sarcoma, n = 7; liposarcoma, n = 5; or other histological subtypes, n = 39) received an average of four lines of treatment (maximum of 10). No consistent or dominant regimens were used in each treatment line beyond the second line. Median second-line treatment duration was 4.1 months (95% confidence interval, 3.0–5.0). Overall, 72 of 99 patients (73%) discontinued second-line treatment due to progressive disease. Median progression-free survival from initiation of second-line treatment varied across regimens from 2.0 to 6.6 months (overall median, 5.4 months).ConclusionsWide variations in treatment were evident, with no single standard of care for patients with metastatic/relapsed STS. Most patients discontinued second-line treatment due to progressive disease, often receiving additional systemic therapy with other drugs. These data suggest a high unmet need for more efficacious treatment options and improved data collection to guide practice among patients with relapsed/refractory STS.

Convergence and inclination of the pars are slightly greater than the suggested by Harms. Individual and/or racial variations must be considered. There is enough space for safe placement of a 3.5 mm screw in the lateral masses of C1 and through the pars of C2. Dissecting the superior face of the posterior arch of C1 laterally more than 10 mm from the posterior tubercule could injure the vertebral artery.

No abstract