Correlation of Measurements of the Prearthritic Hip Between Plain Radiography and Computed Tomography

Air, Mary E.; Harrison, Julian R.; Nguyen, Joseph; Kelly, Bryan T.; Bogner, Eric; Moley, Peter J.

doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.06.001

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scarce literature has specifically addressed the interchangeability of hip parameters between XR and CT. Similar angle measurements were reported by some authors between these modalities, with CT measurements correlating well with some radiographic parameters, 46 namely, acetabular inclination, lateral center-edge angle (L-CEA), and α angles (intermodality reliability, as well as intra-and interrater reliability, of both modalities showed excellent performance 46 ). However, this was only achievable if a standardized procedure was used.…”

Section: Plain Radiographs and Ctsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…47 These results complement other studies showing consistencies associated with CT-facilitated assessments of the pre-arthritic hip. 12,46 However, other authors found that measurement of the Wiberg center-edge angle (W-CEA) consistently increased on CT in accordance with clinical etiology (W-CEA was larger by a mean of 4.9-5.1 degrees on CT in hips with DDH), emphasizing the need for standardization and validation of CT-based measurements. 44…”

Section: Plain Radiographs and Ctmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Imaging Methodology for Hip Preservation: Techniques, Parameters, and Thresholds

Mascarenhas

Ayeni

Egund

et al. 2019

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of hip impingement and hip-preserving surgery has been appreciated in more detail since 2001 when a new surgical approach was reported and a hypothesis linking femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with osteoarthritis was presented. Paralleling the introduction of hip arthroscopy, these events led to an increasing interest in the hip, and the number of publications has risen rapidly over the past 15 years, despite limited evidence levels and inconsistent methodology. Accordingly, etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and the effects of treatment for FAI are still elusive due to a number of uncertainties and a lack of clear diagnostic criteria.Future research must focus on developing high-quality scientific studies, so thorough and reproducible methodology is needed. This review provides researchers, radiologists, and clinicians with a comprehensive approach to hip imaging with a focus on strategies to help guide the clinical diagnosis. Using evidence from current literature and knowledge from experienced clinicians, some of the imaging methodology challenges are deciphered.

show abstract

Section: Plain Radiographs and Ctsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Plain Radiographs and Ctmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging Methodology for Hip Preservation: Techniques, Parameters, and Thresholds

Mascarenhas

Ayeni

Egund

et al. 2019

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An AP pelvic radiograph should be the initial examination for assessing acetabular coverage, although cross-sectional imaging may be also used to assess coverage, providing similar measurements for most parameters [18,27,[53][54][55]. Conflicting reports exist regarding the effect of pelvic positioning on radiographic parameters of coverage [28,[56][57][58], although tilt and rotation seem to mainly influence radiographic signs of acetabular retroversion [9, 22,…”

Section: Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Lisbon Agreement on Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging—part 1: overview

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Imaging assessment for the clinical management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) remains controversial because of a paucity of evidencebased guidance and notable variability in clinical practice, ultimately requiring expert consensus. The purpose of this agreement is to establish expert-based statements on FAIS imaging, using formal techniques of consensus building driven by relevant literature review. Methods:The validated Delphi method and peer-reviewed literature were used to formally derive consensus among 30 panel members (21 musculoskeletal radiologists and 9 orthopedic surgeons) from 13 countries.Forty-two questions were agreed on, and recent relevant seminal literature was circulated and classified in five major topics ("General issues", "Parameters and reporting", "Radiographic assessment", "MRI evaluation" and "Ultrasound") in order to produce answering statements.The level of evidence was noted for all produced statements and panel members were asked to score their level of agreement with each statement (0 to 10) during iterative rounds. Either "group consensus", "group agreement" or "no agreement" was achieved.Items near consensus were further queried using 4 moderated group sessions and in 4 Delphi rounds.Results: Forty-five statements were generated and group consensus was reached for 43 (95.7%). Seventeen of these statements were selected as most important for dissemination in advance. There was no agreement for the two statements pertaining to "Ultrasound". Conclusion:The first international Delphi-based consensus for the imaging assessment of FAIS was developed. The resulting consensus can serve as a tool to reduce variability in clinical practices and guide further research for the clinical management of FAIS. Key Points• FAI imaging literature is extensive although often of low level of evidence.• Radiographic evaluation with a reproducible technique is the cornerstone of hip imaging assessment.• MRI with a dedicated protocol is the gold standard imaging technique for FAI assessment.

show abstract

“…The intraobserver ICC was in line with a study by Air et al, 12 which reported values of 0.83 [CI: 0.70-0.90] for CEA (vs. 0.84 present study) and of 0.75 [CI: 0.55-0.86] for AI (vs. 0.77). The interobserver ICC was within the values reported in the literature, knowing that, in patients with hip disorders, the interobserver ICC can vary from 0.78 [CI: 0.69-0.85] to 0.95 [CI: 0.91-0.98] for CEA (vs. 0.77), from 0.87 [CI: 0.80-0.92] to 0.98 [CI: 0.93-0.99] for AI (vs. 0.56) and from 0.68 [CI: 0.55-0.78] to 0.95 [CI: 0.81-0.99] for AV(vs. 0.85) 10,12,45. The interobserver ICC reported in this study might be in the literature lower range for several reasons.…”

mentioning

confidence: 51%

“…In addition, MR and CT have similar diagnostic power, providing accurate bone models 8,9 and morphometric measurements of the hip which correlate well with each other 10,11 and with radiography-based measurements. 12,13 MR images are commonly used for diagnostic purposes in orthopedic care 14,15 due to their ability to expose defects in periarticular and intraarticular soft tissues. 16 However, the nonselective visualization of bone on common MR images complicates both bone modeling and the measurement of diagnostic parameters as extra care needs to be taken to discriminate bone from soft tissues such as the labrum 13 or ligaments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MRI‐based synthetic CT shows equivalence to conventional CT for the morphological assessment of the hip joint

Florkow

Willemsen

Zijlstra

et al. 2021

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the accuracy of synthetic computed tomography (sCT), as compared to CT, for the 3D assessment of the hip morphology. Thirty male patients with asymptomatic hips, referred for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and CT, were included in this retrospective study. sCT images were generated from threedimensional radiofrequency-spoiled T1-weighted multi-echo gradient-echo MR images using a commercially available deep learning-enabled software and were compared with CT images through mean error and surface distance computation and by means of eight clinical morphometric parameters relevant for hip care.Parameters included center-edge angle (CEA), sharp angle, acetabular index, extrusion index, femoral head center-to-midline distance, acetabular version (AV), and anterior and posterior acetabular sector angles. They were measured by two senior orthopedic surgeons and a radiologist in-training on CT and sCT images. The reliability and agreement of CT-and sCT-based measurements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for absolute agreement, Bland-Altman plots, and two one-sided tests for equivalence. The surface distance between CTand sCT-based bone models were on average submillimeter. CT-and sCT-based measurements showed moderate to excellent interobserver and intraobserver correlation (0.56 < ICC < 0.99). In particular, the inter/intraobserver agreements were good for AV (ICC > 0.75). For CEA, the intraobserver agreement was good (ICC > 0.75) and the interobserver agreement was moderate (ICC > 0.69). Limits of agreements were similar between intraobserver CT and intermodal measurements.All measurements were found statistically equivalent, with average intermodal differences within the intraobserver limits of agreement. In conclusion, sCT and CT were equivalent for the assessment of the hip joint bone morphology.

show abstract

Correlation of Measurements of the Prearthritic Hip Between Plain Radiography and Computed Tomography

Abstract: III.

Cited by 12 publications

References 38 publications

Imaging Methodology for Hip Preservation: Techniques, Parameters, and Thresholds

Imaging Methodology for Hip Preservation: Techniques, Parameters, and Thresholds

The Lisbon Agreement on Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging—part 1: overview

MRI‐based synthetic CT shows equivalence to conventional CT for the morphological assessment of the hip joint

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About