nach oben

Erschienen in:

14.05.2020 | Musculoskeletal

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

verfasst von: Vasco V. Mascarenhas, Miguel O. Castro, Paulo A. Rego, Reto Sutter, Luca Maria Sconfienza, Ara Kassarjian, Florian Schmaranzer, Olufemi R. Ayeni, Tobias Johannes Dietrich, Philip Robinson, Marc-André Weber, Paul E. Beaulé, Michael Dienst, Lennart Jans, Radhesh Lalam, Apostolos H. Karantanas, Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska, Suzanne Anderson, Iris Noebauer-Huhmann, Filip M. Vanhoenacker, Pedro Dantas, Oliver Marin-Peña, Diego Collado, Marc Tey-Pons, Ehrenfried Schmaranzer, Eva Llopis, Mario Padron, Josef Kramer, Patrick O. Zingg, Michel De Maeseneer, P. Diana Afonso

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 10/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Imaging assessment for the clinical management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome remains controversial because of a paucity of evidence-based guidance and notable variability in clinical practice, ultimately requiring expert consensus. The purpose of this agreement is to establish expert-based statements on FAI imaging, using formal techniques of consensus building.

Methods

A validated Delphi method and peer-reviewed literature were used to formally derive consensus among 30 panel members (21 musculoskeletal radiologists and 9 orthopaedic surgeons) from 13 countries. Forty-four 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’ and ‘Ultrasound’) in order to produce answering statements. The level of evidence was noted for all statements, and panel members were asked to score their level of agreement with each statement (0 to 10) during iterative rounds. Either ‘consensus’, ‘agreement’ or ‘no agreement’ was achieved.

Results

Forty-seven statements were generated, and group consensus was reached for 45 (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

Radiographic evaluation is the cornerstone of hip evaluation. An anteroposterior pelvis radiograph and a Dunn 45° view are recommended for the initial assessment of FAI although MRI with a dedicated protocol is the gold standard imaging technique in this setting. The resulting consensus can serve as a tool to reduce variability in clinical practices and guide further research for the clinical management of FAI.

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.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA (2003) Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000096804.78689.c2

Nepple JJ, Lehmann CL, Ross JR, Schoenecker PL, Clohisy JC (2013) Clinical diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(Suppl 1):S16–S19. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-21-07-S16

Agricola R, Heijboer MP, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Verhaar JA, Weinans H, Waarsing JH (2013) Cam impingement causes osteoarthritis of the hip: a nationwide prospective cohort study (CHECK). Ann Rheum Dis 72:918–923. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201643

Glyn-Jones S, Palmer AJR, Agricola R et al (2015) Osteoarthritis. Lancet:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60802-3

Mascarenhas VV, Rego PA, Dantas P et al (2016) Imaging prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in symptomatic patients, athletes, and asymptomatic individuals: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 85:73–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.016CrossRefPubMed

Jung KA, Restrepo C, Hellman M, AbdelSalam H, Morrison W, Parvizi J (2011) The prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular deformity in asymptomatic adults. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:1303. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B10

Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, O’Donnell J et al (2016) The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 50:1169–1176. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096743CrossRefPubMed

Mascarenhas VV, Ayeni OR, Egund N et al (2019) Imaging methodology for hip preservation: techniques, parameters, and thresholds. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 23:197–226. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1688714CrossRefPubMed

Sutter R, Pfirrmann CWA (2017) Update on femoroacetabular impingement: what is new, and how should we assess it? Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 21:518–528. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1606141CrossRefPubMed

10.

Pfirrmann CWA, Mengiardi B, Dora C, Kalberer F, Zanetti M, Hodler J (2006) Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology 240:778–785. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2403050767

11.

Dudda M, Albers C, Mamisch TC, Werlen S, Beck M (2008) Do normal radiographs exclude asphericity of the femoral head-neck junction? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:651–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0617-5

12.

Ganz R, Leunig M, Leunig-Ganz K, Harris WH (2008) The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:264–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0060-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE (2007) Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1540–1552. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0921CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kassarjian A (2019) Hip hype: FAI syndrome, Amara’s law, and the hype cycle. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677695

15.

Steurer J (2011) The Delphi method: an efficient procedure to generate knowledge. Skeletal Radiol 40:959–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1145-zCrossRefPubMed

16.

McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP (2016) How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharmacol 38:655–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-xCrossRef

17.

OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2011) OCEBM levels of evidence. The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

18.

Atkins PR, Shin Y, Agrawal P et al (2018) Which two-dimensional radiographic measurements of cam femoroacetabular impingement best describe the three-dimensional shape of the proximal femur? Clin Orthop Relat Res 1. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000462

19.

Mascarenhas VV, Rego P, Dantas P, Gaspar A, Soldado F, Consciência JG (2017) Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects. Eur Radiol 27:2011–2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4530-0

20.

Mascarenhas VV, Rego PA, Dantas P et al (2018) Can we discriminate symptomatic hip patients from asymptomatic volunteers based on anatomic predictors? A 3-dimensional magnetic resonance study on cam, pincer, and spinopelvic parameters. Am J Sports Med 46:3097–3110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518800825CrossRefPubMed

21.

Mascarenhas VV, Rego PA, Dantas P et al (2018) Hip shape is symmetric, non-dependent on limb dominance and gender-specific: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. A 3D CT analysis in asymptomatic subjects. Eur Radiol 28:1609–1624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5072-9CrossRefPubMed

22.

Domayer SE, Ziebarth K, Chan, Bixby S, Mamisch TC, Kim YJ (2011) Femoroacetabular cam-type impingement: diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of radiographic views compared to radial MRI. Eur J Radiol 80:805–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.016

23.

Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M (2006) Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000201168.72388.24

24.

Hipfl C, Titz M, Chiari C et al (2017) Detecting cam-type deformities on plain radiographs: what is the optimal lateral view? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2793-9

25.

Saito M, Tsukada S, Yoshida K, Okada Y, Tasaki A (2016) Correlation of alpha angle between various radiographic projections and radial magnetic resonance imaging for cam deformity in femoral head–neck junction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4046-9

26.

Smith KM, Gerrie BJ, McCulloch PC, Lintner DM, Harris JD (2018) Comparison of MRI, CT, Dunn 45° and Dunn 90° alpha angle measurements in femoroacetabular impingement. Hip Int 22:hipint.5000602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.027

27.

Samim M, Eftekhary N, Vigdorchik JM et al (2019) 3D-MRI versus 3D-CT in the evaluation of osseous anatomy in femoroacetabular impingement using Dixon 3D FLASH sequence. Skeletal Radiol 48:429–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-018-3049-7CrossRefPubMed

28.

Agten CA, Sutter R, Buck FM, Pfirrmann CWA (2016) Hip imaging in athletes: sports imaging series. Radiology 280:351–369. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151348CrossRefPubMed

29.

Petchprapa CN, Dunham KS, Lattanzi R, Recht MP (2013) Demystifying radial imaging of the hip. Radiographics 33:E97–E112. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.333125030CrossRefPubMed

30.

Albers CE, Wambeek N, Hanke MS, Schmaranzer F, Prosser GH, Yates PJ (2016) Imaging of femoroacetabular impingement-current concepts. J Hip Preserv Surg 3:245–261. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnw035

31.

Yoon LS, Palmer WE, Kassarjian A (2007) Evaluation of radial-sequence imaging in detecting acetabular labral tears at hip MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol 36:1029–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-007-0363-xCrossRefPubMed

32.

Reiman MP, Thorborg K, Goode AP, Cook CE, Weir A, Hölmich P (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities and injection techniques for the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement/labral tear: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 45:2665–2677. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-31

33.

Ayeni OR, Wong I, Chien T, Musahl V, Kelly BT, Bhandari M (2012) Surgical indications for arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy 28:1170–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.01.010

34.

Saied AM, Redant C, El-Batouty M et al (2017) Accuracy of magnetic resonance studies in the detection of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1443-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Smith TO, Simpson M, Ejindu V, Hing CB (2012) The diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and computer tomography in the detection of chondral lesions of the hip. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:335–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-0972-5CrossRefPubMed

36.

Sutter R, Zubler V, Hoffmann A et al (2014) Hip MRI: how useful is intraarticular contrast material for evaluating surgically proven lesions of the labrum and articular cartilage? AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:160–169. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10266CrossRefPubMed

37.

Chopra A, Grainger AJ, Dube B et al (2018) Comparative reliability and diagnostic performance of conventional 3T magnetic resonance imaging and 1.5T magnetic resonance arthrography for the evaluation of internal derangement of the hip. Eur Radiol 28:963–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5069-4CrossRefPubMed

38.

Crespo-Rodríguez AM, De Lucas-Villarrubia JC, Pastrana-Ledesma M, Hualde-Juvera A, Méndez-Alonso S, Padron M (2017) The diagnostic performance of non-contrast 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging (3-T MRI) versus 1.5-tesla magnetic resonance arthrography (1.5-T MRA) in femoro-acetabular impingement. Eur J Radiol 88:109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.12.031

39.

Schmaranzer F, Todorski IAS, Lerch TD, Schwab J, Cullmann-Bastian J, Tannast M (2017) Intra-articular lesions: imaging and surgical correlation. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 21:487–506. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1606133

40.

Schmaranzer F, Klauser A, Kogler M et al (2014) Diagnostic performance of direct traction MR arthrography of the hip: detection of chondral and labral lesions with arthroscopic comparison. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3534-x

41.

Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J (2002) The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:556–560

42.

Ehrmann C, Rosskopf AB, Pfirrmann CWA, Sutter R (2015) Beyond the alpha angle: alternative measurements for quantifying cam-type deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. J Magn Reson Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24861

43.

Agricola R, Waarsing JH, Thomas GE et al (2014) Cam impingement: defining the presence of a cam deformity by the alpha angle: data from the CHECK cohort and Chingford cohort. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22:218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.007CrossRefPubMed

44.

Kraeutler MJ, Chadayammuri V, Garabekyan T, Mei-Dan O (2018) Femoral version abnormalities significantly outweigh effect of cam impingement on hip internal rotation. J Bone Joint Surg 100:205–210. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.00376CrossRefPubMed

45.

Gollwitzer H, Suren C, Strüwind C et al (2018) The natural alpha angle of the femoral head-neck junction: a cross-sectional CT study in 1312 femurs. Bone Joint J 100-B:570–578. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B5.BJJ-2017-0249.R3CrossRefPubMed

46.

Hetsroni I, Torre Dela K, Duke G, Lyman S, Kelly BT (2013) Sex differences of hip morphology in young adults with hip pain and labral tears. Arthroscopy 29:54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.07.008

47.

Kopec JA, Cibere J, Li LC et al (2017) Relationship between physical activity and hip pain in persons with and without cam or pincer morphology: a population-based case-control study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 25:1055–1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2017.02.795CrossRefPubMed

48.

Beaulé PE, Grammatopoulos G, Speirs A et al (2018) Unravelling the hip pistol grip/cam deformity: origins to joint degeneration. J Orthop Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24137

49.

Eijer H, Leunig M, Mahomed N, Ganz R (2001) Cross-table lateral radiographs for screening of anterior femoral head-neck offset in patients with femoro-acetabular impingement. Hip Int 11:37–41CrossRef

50.

Kang ACL, Gooding AJ, Coates MH, Goh TD, Armour P, Rietveld J (2010) Computed tomography assessment of hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 38:1160–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509358320

51.

Stelzeneder D, Hingsammer A, Bixby SD, Kim Y-J (2012) Can radiographic morphometric parameters for the hip be assessed on MRI? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:989–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2654-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Air ME, Harrison JR, Nguyen JT, Kelly BT, Bogner EA, Moley PJ (2019) Correlation of measurements of the prearthritic hip between plain radiography and computed tomography. PM R 11:158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.06.001

53.

Rhee C, Le Francois T, Byrd JWT, Glazebrook M, Wong I (2017) Radiographic diagnosis of pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med 5:232596711770830. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200301000-00001

54.

Tannast M, Hanke MS, Zheng G, Steppacher SD, Siebenrock KA (2015) What are the radiographic reference values for acetabular under- and overcoverage? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4038-3

55.

Henebry A, Gaskill T (2013) The effect of pelvic tilt on radiographic markers of acetabular coverage. Am J Sports Med 41:2599–2603. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200502000-00004CrossRefPubMed

56.

Monazzam S, Bomar JD, Dwek JR, Hosalkar HS, Pennock AT (2013) Development and prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement-associated morphology in a paediatric and adolescent population: a CT study of 225 patients. Bone Joint J 95-B:598–604. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.30118

57.

Tannast M, Fritsch S, Zheng G, Siebenrock KA, Steppacher SD (2015) Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(4):1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3936-8

58.

Jackson TJ, Estess AA, Adamson GJ (2016) Supine and standing AP pelvis radiographs in the evaluation of pincer femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1692–1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4766-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Werner CML, Ramseier LE, Ruckstuhl T et al (2012) Normal values of Wiberg’s lateral center-edge angle and Lequesne’s acetabular index—a coxometric update. Skeletal Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-012-1420-7

60.

Siebenrock KA, Kistler L, Schwab JM, Büchler L, Tannast M (2012) The acetabular wall index for assessing anteroposterior femoral head coverage in symptomatic patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3355–3360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2477-2

61.

Hanke MS, Steppacher SD, Anwander H, Werlen S, Siebenrock KA, Tannast M (2017) What MRI findings predict failure 10 years after surgery for femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(4):1192–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5040-8

62.

Nepple JJ (2013) Coxa profunda is not a useful radiographic parameter for diagnosing pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:417. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01664CrossRefPubMed

63.

Wiberg G (1939) Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint: with special reference to the complication of osteo-arthritis. Karolinska Institutet, Orthopedic Clinic

64.

Laborie LB, Engesæter IØ, Lehmann TG et al (2013) Radiographic measurements of hip dysplasia at skeletal maturity—new reference intervals based on 2,038 19-year-old Norwegians. Skeletal Radiol 42:925–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1574-yCrossRefPubMed

65.

Tönnis D (1987) Congenital dysplasia and dislocation of the hip in children and adults. Springer, BerlinCrossRef

66.

Siebenrock KA, Schaller C, Tannast M, Keel M, Büchler L (2014) Anteverting periacetabular osteotomy for symptomatic acetabular retroversion: results at ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1785–1792. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00842

67.

Hartigan DE, Perets I, Walsh JP, Close MR, Domb BG (2016) Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy in radiographically diagnosed retroverted acetabula. Am J Sports Med 44:2531–2536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516652615

68.

Parry JA, Swann RP, Erickson JA, Peters CL, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ (2016) Midterm outcomes of reverse (anteverting) periacetabular osteotomy in patients with hip impingement secondary to acetabular retroversion. Am J Sports Med 44:672–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515620382

69.

Zaltz I, Kelly BT, Hetsroni I, Bedi A (2012) The crossover sign overestimates acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2463–2470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2689-5CrossRefPubMedCentral

70.

Larson CM, Moreau-Gaudry A, Kelly BT et al (2014) Are normal hips being labeled as pathologic? A CT-based method for defining normal acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1247–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4055-2CrossRefPubMedCentral

71.

Wassilew GI, Heller MO, Diederichs G, Janz V, Wenzl M, Perka C (2012) Standardized AP radiographs do not provide reliable diagnostic measures for the assessment of acetabular retroversion. J Orthop Res 30:1369–1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.05.005

72.

Dandachli W, Islam SU, Liu M, Richards R, Hall-Craggs M, Witt J (2009) Three-dimensional CT analysis to determine acetabular retroversion and the implications for the management of femoro-acetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1031

73.

Zurmühle CA, Anwander H, Albers CE et al (2016) Periacetabular osteotomy provides higher survivorship than rim trimming for acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5177-5

74.

Steppacher SD, Lerch TD, Gharanizadeh K et al (2014) Size and shape of the lunate surface in different types of pincer impingement: theoretical implications for surgical therapy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22:951–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.05.010CrossRefPubMed

75.

Bensler S, Dietrich TJ, Zubler V, Pfirrmann CWA, Sutter R (2019) Pincer-type MRI morphology seen in over a third of asymptomatic healthy volunteers without femoroacetabular impingement. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:1296–1303. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26297

76.

Wassilew GI, Heller MO, Janz V, Perka C, Müller M, Renner L (2017) High prevalence of acetabular retroversion in asymptomatic adults: a 3D CT-based study. Bone Joint J 99-B:1584–1589. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B12.37081

77.

Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R (2005) Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1012–1018. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B7CrossRefPubMed

78.

Czerny C, Hofmann S, Neuhold A et al (1996) Lesions of the acetabular labrum: accuracy of MR imaging and MR arthrography in detection and staging. Radiology 200:225–230. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.200.1.8657916CrossRefPubMed

79.

Seldes RM, Tan V, Hunt J, Katz M, Winiarsky R, Fitzgerald RH Jr (2001) Anatomy, histologic features, and vascularity of the adult acetabular labrum. Clin Orthop Relat Res:232–240

80.

Lund B, Mygind-Klavsen B, Grønbech Nielsen T et al (2017) Danish hip arthroscopy registry (DHAR): the outcome of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). J Hip Preserv Surg 4:170–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0654-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

81.

Nakano N, Gohal C, Duong A, Ayeni OR, Khanduja V (2018) Outcomes of cartilage repair techniques for chondral injury in the hip—a systematic review. Int Orthop 42:2309–2322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3862-6

82.

Zaltz I, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Leunig M, Bedi A (2014) Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: what are the limits of hip arthroscopy? Arthroscopy 30:99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.10.005

Titel: The Lisbon Agreement on Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging—part 1: overview
verfasst von: Vasco V. Mascarenhas
Miguel O. Castro
Paulo A. Rego
Reto Sutter
Luca Maria Sconfienza
Ara Kassarjian
Florian Schmaranzer
Olufemi R. Ayeni
Tobias Johannes Dietrich
Philip Robinson
Marc-André Weber
Paul E. Beaulé
Michael Dienst
Lennart Jans
Radhesh Lalam
Apostolos H. Karantanas
Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska
Suzanne Anderson
Iris Noebauer-Huhmann
Filip M. Vanhoenacker
Pedro Dantas
Oliver Marin-Peña
Diego Collado
Marc Tey-Pons
Ehrenfried Schmaranzer
Eva Llopis
Mario Padron
Josef Kramer
Patrick O. Zingg
Michel De Maeseneer
P. Diana Afonso
Publikationsdatum: 14.05.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06822-9

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

08.04.2024 | Andrologie | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

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

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Quantitative Angiografie könnte IVUS-Alternative darstellen

Die Ganz-Genom-Sequenzierung startet

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2020

Chest computed tomography findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia

Neuro research presentation sessions at ECR 2020

Results of trials assessing transarterial chemoembolization for treating hepatocellular carcinoma are critically underreported

Early detection of ovarian cancer

MRI-based texture analysis for differentiating pediatric craniofacial rhabdomyosarcoma from infantile hemangioma

Is there association between statin usage and contrast-associated acute kidney injury after intravenous administration of iodine-based contrast media in enhanced computed tomography?

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Quantitative Angiografie könnte IVUS-Alternative darstellen

Die Ganz-Genom-Sequenzierung startet

Update Radiologie