Systematic Review

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in the Diagnosis of Femoroacetabular Impingement Takuma Yamasaki, M.D., Ph.D., Yuji Yasunaga, M.D., Ph.D., Takeshi Shoji, M.D., Ph.D., Sotaro Izumi, M.D., Susumu Hachisuka, M.D., and Mitsuo Ochi, M.D., Ph.D.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to clarify the criteria for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) by way of a systematic review of FAI-related articles, as well as to define more appropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria in the diagnosis of FAI. Methods: A systematic review of FAI-related articles was performed using Web of Science. Thirty-two articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In these articles we investigated radiographic findings for the diagnosis of FAI and the prevalence of each FAI-related finding. Results: The crossover sign was used in 22 articles (69%); acetabular index, 9 articles (28%); posterior wall sign, 7 articles (22%); and prominence of the ischial spine sign, 3 articles (7%). Regarding acetabular coverage, the lateral center-edge (LCE) angle was described in 13 articles (41%), in which an LCE angle either of more than 40 or of more than 30 combined with an acetabular index of less than 0 was considered an inclusion criterion for pincer impingement. Meanwhile, the alpha angle was used in 28 articles (88%), in which 50 or 55 was recommended as a positive finding of cam impingement. Conclusions: Common findings of pincer or cam deformity were used to select FAI patients with sufficient coverage of the acetabulum with an LCE angle of more than 25 . Patients with an LCE angle of less than 25 or those with local acetabular deficiency regardless of having a normal LCE angle should be excluded from the FAI criteria, even if the FAI-related findings are positive. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.

R

ecently, there have been many reports on the diagnosis or treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), which has been widely described as a possible cause of osteoarthritis.1-3 Overcoverage of the acetabulum could induce pincer impingement, whereas bone abnormality at the femoral head-neck junction could induce cam impingement.4-6 However, the correlation between radiographic FAI-related findings and the actual phenomenon of impingement remains unclear. Pincer-type FAI is usually diagnosed from such findings as the crossover sign, the posterior wall sign, the prominence of the ischial spine sign, or coxa profunda.6,7 However, cases of mild pelvic tilt or

From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University (T.Y., T.S., S.I., S.H., M.O.); and Hiroshima Prefectural Rehabilitation Center (Y.Y.), Hiroshima, Japan. The authors report that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this article. Received July 9, 2014; accepted December 30, 2014. Address correspondence to Takuma Yamasaki, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] Ó 2015 by the Arthroscopy Association of North America 0749-8063/14574/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.022

developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) could induce false-positive results.8 Cam-type FAI is diagnosed from such findings as the alpha angle, pistolgrip deformity, or femoral head-neck offset.6,9,10 However, the condition of the radiographic images and measurement methods of the observers could cause these FAI-related findings to change. Therefore over-diagnosis of FAI may occur regardless of actual impingement in daily life activities. Meanwhile, insufficient coverage of the acetabulum could induce hip instability.11 In Japan, the prevalence of DDH is high in patients with hip disorders, which has contributed to the development of surgical treatments for DDH including joint-preserving surgery. However, in cases with mild DDH, it has been unclear whether this symptom is derived from impingement or from instability of the hip.12,13 The purpose of this study was to clarify the criteria of FAI by means of a systematic review of FAI-related articles, as well as to revise the definition of FAI to avoid over-diagnoses or excessive treatments. We hypothesized that the pathology of FAI comes into existence with sufficient acetabular coverage and that different pathologies such as hip instability could be a cause of groin pain even in the case of a shallow acetabulum with a normal center-edge angle.

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, Vol

-,

No

-

(Month), 2015: pp 1-8

1

2

T. YAMASAKI ET AL.

Fig 1. Flow diagram showing method of article selection for study inclusion.

Methods A systematic review of FAI-related articles was performed to clarify the diagnostic criteria for FAI. We searched Web of Science for articles published between January 2008 and July 2013. Relevant articles that we located in the database included the term “femoroacetabular impingement.” These articles were investigated with the aim of removing duplicate studies. A total of 684 articles were identified in our search, and each abstract was reviewed by 2 of the authors (T.Y. and T.S.). Articles that mentioned the reason patients were selected to undergo FAI diagnosis were extracted. Of the 684 total articles, 93 qualified for full-text inspection. We included only studies that were published in English and reported on clinical FAI research involving more than 50 patients. Articles in which patients had previous hip disorders such as slipped capital femoral epiphysis, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, osteoarthritis of more than grade 1 by the Tönnis classification, osteonecrosis, or post-traumatic deformity were excluded. Thirty-two articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sixty-one articles did not meet the inclusion criteria, comprising 40 articles with fewer than 50 patients, 10 review articles, 6 articles with healthy subjects who did not have any symptoms in the groin, and 5 articles with patients who had had previous hip disorders (Fig 1). In these articles we investigated the justification for the FAI diagnosis, including radiographic FAI-related findings and physical examination findings. Furthermore, we also focused on the exclusion criteria for FAI in these articles, such as

previous hip disorders, previous hip surgery, patient age, and presence of hip dysplasia.

Results

Standard conventional radiographic findings for the diagnosis of FAI were used in the reviewed articles. The crossover sign, the posterior wall sign, the prominence of the ischial spine sign, coxa profunda, protrusio acetabuli, the acetabular index (acetabular roof obliquity), and the lateral center-edge (LCE) angle were used to estimate pincer impingement with single or multiple findings evaluated in the articles. The alpha angle, pistol-grip deformity, triangular index,14 head-neck offset, and herniation pit were used to estimate cam impingement with single or multiple findings evaluated in the articles. In addition, the presence of previous hip disorders including osteoarthritis, positive findings of physical examinations for FAI, previous hip operations, age at surgery, and intra-articular disorders such as labral tears and chondral pathology were investigated in the diagnosis of FAI (Table 1). As for the prevalence of FAI-related findings, the crossover sign was used in 23 articles (72%), coxa profunda in 10 articles (31%), and the posterior wall sign in 7 articles (22%) (Table 2). Regarding acetabular coverage, the LCE angle was mentioned in 13 articles (41%), and an LCE angle either of more than 40 or of more than 30 combined with an acetabular index of less than 0 was considered an inclusion criterion for pincer impingement. Meanwhile, the alpha angle was used in 28 articles (88%), with 50 or 55

Table 1. Participant Demographic Data for Studies of Femoroacetabular Impingement

Study DiazLedezma et al.15 Tibor et al.16

Level of Evidence Prognostic study, IV

No. of Patients (No. of Hips) 108

Information of FAI-Related Findings Coxa Herniation Mean Crossover Posterior Sign Wall Sign Profunda Pit Age, yr 36 Yes

Alpha Angle,  >50 >55

96 (112)

Steppacher et al.17 Monazzam et al.18

Prognostic study, III Prognostic study, IV

53 (53) 225

55

Fraitzl et al.19

Diagnostic study, III Prognostic study, III Prognostic study, IV

339

>60

646 188 (204)

29

Yes

29.8

Yes

35

Yes

38.4

Yes

57

Yes

40.2

Yes

Yes

Yes

>50 Yes

Impellizzeri et al.25 Byrd and Jones26

Therapeutic study, IV Therapeutic study, IV

102

35.9

200

28.6

Diagnostic study, IV Diagnostic study, II Diagnostic study, I

49 (60)

28

>55

75 (148)

17.2

>55

116 (123)

37.4

Yes

Yes

>50

Yes

>50

Yes

Xp CT

Xp Xp, CT, MRI

Protrusio acetabuli

Xp, MRarthro Xp, MRI

Protrusio acetabuli

Xp, Gdenhanced MRI Xp

LCE angle 20 LCE angle 25 LCE angle 20

Femoral head asphericity by 3D CT

Yes

Xp, MRarthro

LCE angle 20

>50

Yes

Evaluation Method Xp, MRI

Xp, MRI

65

Prognostic 167 (180) study, III Therapeutic 60 (65) study, IV Therapeutic 201 study, IV

Yes

Femoral version, acetabular version, neck shaft angle Retroversion index, PRIS sign LCE angle 40 , Tönnis angle 25

Xp, CT

Radial MRI, Xp Radial MRI

LCE angle 20

Xp

LCE angle >25

3

(continued)

Study Larson et al.30

Hartofilakidis et al.31

Kivlan et al.32 Paliobeis and Villar33 Chen et al.34

Kim et al.36

Pollard et al.37 Horisberger et al.38 Takeyama et al.39 Lohan et al.40 Allen et al.41 Brunner et al.42 Philippon et al.43 Panzer et al.44 Larson and Giveans45 Tannast et al.46

No. of Information of FAI-Related Findings Patients Pistol-Grip Head-Neck (No. of Mean Crossover Posterior Coxa Herniation Alpha Level of Deformity Offset Other Findings Sign Wall Sign Profunda Pit Angle,  Evidence Hips) Age, yr Prognostic 210 (227) 35.1 Yes Yes >50 Femoral head study, IV asphericity by 3D CT, protrusio acetabuli Prognostic 96 (96) 49.3 Yes Yes >68 Yes LCE angle 35 and study, IV (men)or acetabular index >50 0 (women) Therapeutic 72 29.9 Yes >50 Yes study, IV Diagnostic 76 34.6 Yes Yes Yes study, IV Diagnostic 1,128 Yes Yes study, IV Prognostic 338 (355) 36.8 Yes Yes >50 LCE angle >39 , study, III acetabular index 39 , study, IV acetabular index 50 Yes Yes study, IV Prognostic 817 (946) study, IV Diagnostic 78 study, III Prognostic 113 study, IV Therapeutic 53 study, IV Therapeutic 112 study, IV Diagnostic 200 study, IV Therapeutic 96 (100) study, IV Diagnostic 55 study, II

54.8

Yes

>60

Yes

55

35.5 37.9

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

55.1

Yes

34

PRIS sign, coxa protrusio

Yes

Yes

Yes

Xp, MRarthro Xp Xp Xp, CT

Xp

CEA 20

Xp, Gdenhanced MRI Xp

Xp MRarthro

>50

Xp

>50

CT

50

CEA 20

Xp

50

>50 or 55

34.7

Xp

MRarthro

>55.5

Yes

Yes 40.6

Yes

Evaluation Method Xp, MRI

Information on Acetabular Coverage

3D CT Yes

Coxa protrusio

Xp, CT, MRarthro Xp, CT

CEA, enter edge angle; CT, computed tomography; FAI, femoroacetabular impingement; LCE, lateral center edge; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PRIS, prominence of ischial spine; 3D, 3dimensional.

T. YAMASAKI ET AL.

Nepple et al.35

4

Table 1. Continued

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA FOR FAI Table 2. Frequency of Radiographic Parameters for FAI Diagnosis Frequency Pincer-type FAI Crossover sign (Xp) Coxa profunda (Xp) Posterior wall sign (Xp) Protrusio acetabuli (Xp) CE angle (Xp) (CE >40 or CE >30 þ ARO

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in the Diagnosis of Femoroacetabular Impingement.

The purpose of this study was to clarify the criteria for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) by way of a systematic review of FAI-related articles, as...
355KB Sizes 0 Downloads 7 Views