User login
Antegrade Femoral Nail Distal Interlocking Screw Causing Rupture of the Medial Patellofemoral Ligament and Patellar Instability
ABSTRACT
Antegrade reamed intramedullary nailing has the advantages of high fracture union and early weight-bearing, making it the gold standard for fixation of diaphyseal femur fractures. However, knowledge of distal femoral anatomy may mitigate the risk of secondary complications.
We present a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing in which a 23-year-old man sustained iatrogenic rupture of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) caused by the distal interlocking screw of the femoral nail. The patient had a history of antegrade intramedullary nailing that was revised for rotational malalignment, after which he began experiencing recurrent episodes of atraumatic bloody joint effusion and swelling of the right knee with associated patellar instability. Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a large effusion with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL. The patient underwent a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability, and was able to return to his activities.
This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.
Continue to: Reamed intramedullary nails...
Reamed intramedullary nails are the gold standard for fixation of femoral diaphyseal fractures.1 Antegrade or retrograde nails are effective options, with the choice of technique based on factors including surgeon preference, patient factors, and concomitant injuries.2 Interlocking screws are generally placed to allow control of both rotation and length.1 Advantages of intramedullary treatment of femoral diaphyseal fractures compared with plate fixation include low rates of infection, lower nonunion rate, and faster patient mobilization and weight-bearing.3
Complications of antegrade intramedullary fixation of femoral shaft fractures include infection, nonunion, malunion, anterior cortical perforation, heterotopic ossification, abductor weakness, and soft tissue irritation from interlocking screws.2-4 Femoral intramedullary nails are not routinely removed because the hardware is rarely symptomatic and removing the nail involves additional surgical morbidity with the potential for complications.5 Interlocking screws are removed in select cases due to soft tissue irritation, generally after fracture union. Although hardware removal may help in select cases, removal of intramedullary nails is associated with low rates of symptom resolution.6-8
We present a case of iatrogenic medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) disruption by the distal interlocking screw leading to patellar instability, a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing for femoral diaphyseal fractures. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
CASE REPORT
We present a case of a 23-year-old man whose status was 2 years post antegrade reamed femoral intramedullary nailing at an outside institution for a right diaphyseal femur fracture. This issue was revised for external rotational malalignment, and he presented with right anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar subluxation, and recurrent effusions. The extent of external rotational malalignment and subsequent rotational correction were not evident from the available outside institution records. These symptoms began after his femoral nail revision for malalignment, and he had no subsequent trauma. The femoral fracture healed uneventfully. The patient denied any history of knee pain, swelling, or patellar instability before his femoral nail revision for malalignment. These episodes of effusion, instability, and pain occurred several times per year, generally with activities of daily living (ADL). On one occasion, he presented to a local emergency room where knee aspiration revealed no evidence of crystals or infection. The patient was referred to the senior author (Dr. Nho) for consultation.
Physical examination revealed right knee full extension with flexion to 80°. A moderate right knee effusion was present. The patient was tender over the medial femoral epicondyle and the superomedial aspect of the patella without joint line tenderness. Lateral patellar instability was present with 2 quadrants of translation (compared with 1 on the contralateral side) and patellar apprehension. The patient’s knee was ligamentously stable, and meniscal signs were absent. His lower extremity rotational profile was symmetric to the contralateral uninjured side.
Right femur and knee X-rays showed an antegrade intramedullary nail with a well-healed diaphyseal fracture and a single distal interlocking screw oriented from posterolateral to anteromedial (Figures 1A-1G). The screw tip was prominent on sunrise X-ray view anterior to the medial femoral epicondyle (Figure 1C). Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a large effusion and lateral patellar subluxation with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL near the femoral attachment (Figure 2). Patellar height, trochlear morphology, and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance were assessed and found to be normal.
Continue to: The patient elected...
The patient elected to have a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed the distal interlocking screw to be intra-articular medially, prominent by 3 mm causing attritional disruption of the mid-substance MPFL (Figure 3A). The patella was noted to be subluxated and tracking laterally (Figure 3B). Both the anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament were intact, and menisci and articular cartilage were normal. The distal interlocking screw was removed under fluoroscopic guidance through a small lateral incision (Figure 3C).
Due to the nature of the longstanding attritional disruption of the MPFL in this case with associated patellar instability over a 2-year period, the decision was made to proceed with formal MPFL reconstruction as opposed to repair. A 2-cm incision was made at the medial aspect of the patella. The proximal half of the patella was decorticated. Guide pins were placed within the proximal half of the patella, ensuring at least a 1-cm bone bridge between them, and two 4.75-mm SwiveLock suture anchors (Arthrex) were inserted. A semitendinosus graft was used for MPFL reconstruction with the 2 ends of the graft secured to 2 suture anchors with a whipstitch. Lateral fluoroscopy was used to identify Schöttle’s point, denoting the femoral origin of the MPFL9 (Figure 3D). A 2-cm incision was made at this location. A guide pin was then placed at Schöttle’s point under fluoroscopic guidance, aimed proximally, and the knee was brought through a range of motion (ROM), to verify graft isometry. Once verified, the guide pin was over-reamed to 8 mm. The layer between the retinaculum and the capsule was carefully dissected, and the graft was passed extra-articularly in the plane between the retinaculum and the capsule, out through the medial incision, and docked into the bone tunnel. An 8-mm BioComposite interference screw (Arthrex) was then placed with the knee flexed to 30°. The knee was then passed through a ROM and an arthroscopic evaluation confirmed that the patella was no longer subluxated laterally. There was normal tracking of the patellofemoral joint on arthroscopic evaluation.
Postoperatively, the patient was maintained in a hinged knee brace for 6 weeks. He was weight-bearing as tolerated when locked in full extension beginning immediately postoperatively, and allowed to unlock the brace to start non-weight-bearing active flexion and extension with therapy on postoperative day 1. Radiographs confirmed removal of the distal interlocking screw (Figures 4A, 4B). Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability at 1-year postoperative, and was able to return to his ADL and recreational sporting activities (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] ADL, 100; KOOS sporting and recreational activities, 95; quality of life, 100; Marx Activity Rating Scale, 12).
DISCUSSION
The MPFL connects the superomedial edge of the patella to the medial femur and is injured in nearly 100% of patellar dislocations.6 The femoral origin lies between the adductor tubercle and the medial epicondyle.7 The MPFL prevents lateral subluxation of the patella and acts as the major restraint during the first 20° of knee flexion. Although radiographic parameters for identifying the MPFL femoral origin have been defined by both Schöttle and colleagues9 and Stephen and colleagues10, it is important to check the isometry intraoperatively through a ROM when performing MPFL reconstruction. In this case, the patient’s history and physical examination showed patellar instability, which was determined to be iatrogenically related to the distal interlocking screw rupture of the MPFL. Following screw removal and MPFL reconstruction, the patient had no further symptoms of pain, effusion, or patellar instability and returned to his normal activities.
Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures is a common complication,4 with a 22% incidence of malrotation of at least 15° in 1 series from an academic trauma center.11 There are mixed data as to whether malrotation is more common in complex fracture patterns, in cases performed during night hours, and in cases performed by non-trauma fellowship-trained surgeons.11-13 The natural history of malrotation is not well elucidated, but there is some suggestion that it alters load bearing in the distal joints of the involved leg including the patellofemoral joint. Patients also may not tolerate malrotation due to the abnormal foot progression angle, particularly with malrotation >15°.4 In this case, the patient’s initial femoral nail was placed in an externally rotated position, requiring revision. The result of this was an unusual trajectory of the distal interlocking screw from posterolateral to anteromedial. Combined with the prominent screw tip, the trajectory of this distal interlocking screw likely contributed to the injury to the MPFL observed in this case. This trajectory would also pose potential risk to the common peroneal nerve, which is usually situated posterior to the insertion point for distal femoral interlocking screws. The prominent distal interlock screw is a well-recognized problem with femoral intramedullary nails. This issue results from the tapering of the width of the distal femur from being larger posteriorly to being smaller anteriorly. To avoid placement of a prominent distal interlocking screw, surgeons often will obtain an intraoperative anterior-posterior radiograph with the lower extremity in 30° of internal rotation to account for the angle of the medial aspect of the distal femur.
This practice represents, to our knowledge, a previously unreported cause of patellar instability as well as an unreported complication of antegrade femoral intramedullary nailing. Surgeons treating these conditions should consider this potential complication and pursue advanced imaging if patients present with these complaints after femoral intramedullary nail placement. Knowledge of both MPFL origin and insertional anatomy and avoidance of prominent distal interlocking screws in the region of the MPFL, if possible, would likely prevent this complication.
Limitations of this study include the case report design, which makes it impossible to comment on the incidence of this complication or to make comparisons regarding treatment options. There is, of course, the possibility that the patient had a concurrent MPFL injury from the injury in which he sustained the femur fracture. Nevertheless, the clinical history, examination, imaging, and arthroscopic findings all strongly suggest that the prominent distal interlocking screw was the cause of his MPFL injury and patellar instability. Finally, the point widely defined by Schöttle and colleagues12 was used for MPFL reconstruction in this case based on an intraoperative true lateral radiograph of the distal femur. It should be noted that recent literature has debated the accuracy of this method for determining the femoral origin, the anatomy of the MPFL in relation to the quadriceps, and type of fixation for MPFL reconstruction with some advocating soft tissue only fixation.14-17 For purposes of this case report, we focused on a different cause of MPFL disruption in this patient and our technique for MPFL reconstruction.
CONCLUSION
This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.
This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.
- Brumback RJ, Virkus WW. Intramedullary nailing of the femur: reamed versus nonreamed. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8(2):83-90.
- Ricci WM, Bellabarba C, Evanoff B, Herscovici D, DiPasquale T, Sanders R. Retrograde versus antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001;15(3):161-169.
- Ricci WM, Gallagher B, Haidukewych GJ. Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(5):296-305.
- Lindsey JD, Krieg JC. Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nail fixation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(1):17-26.
- Busam ML, Esther RJ, Obremskey WT. Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(2):113-120.
- Morshed S, Humphrey M, Corrales LA, Millett M, Hoffinger SA. Retention of flexible intramedullary nails following treatment of pediatric femur fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(7):509-514.
- Boerger TO, Patel G, Murphy JP. Is routine removal of intramedullary nails justified. Injury. 1999;30(2):79-81.
- Kellan J. Fracture healing: Does hardware removal enhance patient outcomes. Chin J Orthop Trauma (Chin). 2010;12:374-378.
- Schöttle PB, Schmeling A, Rosenstiel N, Weiler A. Radiographic landmarks for femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(5):801-804. doi:10.1177/0363546506296415.
- Stephen JM, Lumpaopong P, Deehan DJ, Kader D, Amis AA. The medial patellofemoral ligament: location of femoral attachment and length change patterns resulting from anatomic and nonanatomic attachments. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(8):1871-1879. doi:10.1177/0363546512449998.
- Hüfner T, Citak M, Suero EM, et al. Femoral malrotation after unreamed intramedullary nailing: an evaluation of influencing operative factors. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(4):224-227. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181e47e3b.
- Ayalon OB, Patel NM, Yoon RS, Donegan DJ, Koerner JD, Liporace FA. Comparing femoral version after intramedullary nailing performed by trauma-trained and non-trauma trained surgeons: is there a difference? Injury. 2014;45(7):1091-1094. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2014.01.024.
- Patel NM, Yoon RS, Cantlon MB, Koerner JD, Donegan DJ, Liporace FA. Intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal femur fractures secondary to gunshot wounds: predictors of postoperative malrotation. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(12):711-714. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000124.
- Ziegler CG, Fulkerson JP, Edgar C. Radiographic reference points are inaccurate with and without a true lateral radiograph: the importance of anatomy in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):133-142.
- Fulkerson JP, Edgar C. Medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament: surgical anatomy and reconstruction technique to prevent patella instability. Arthrosc Tech. 2013;2(2):e125-e128. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2013.01.002.
- Tanaka MJ, Voss A, Fulkerson JP. The anatomic midpoint of the attachment of the medial patellofemoral complex. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(14):1199-1205. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01182.
- Mochizuki T, Nimura A, Tateishi T, Yamaguchi K, Muneta T, Akita K. Anatomic study of the attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament and its characteristic relationships to the vastus intermedius. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(2):305-310. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-1993-7.
ABSTRACT
Antegrade reamed intramedullary nailing has the advantages of high fracture union and early weight-bearing, making it the gold standard for fixation of diaphyseal femur fractures. However, knowledge of distal femoral anatomy may mitigate the risk of secondary complications.
We present a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing in which a 23-year-old man sustained iatrogenic rupture of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) caused by the distal interlocking screw of the femoral nail. The patient had a history of antegrade intramedullary nailing that was revised for rotational malalignment, after which he began experiencing recurrent episodes of atraumatic bloody joint effusion and swelling of the right knee with associated patellar instability. Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a large effusion with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL. The patient underwent a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability, and was able to return to his activities.
This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.
Continue to: Reamed intramedullary nails...
Reamed intramedullary nails are the gold standard for fixation of femoral diaphyseal fractures.1 Antegrade or retrograde nails are effective options, with the choice of technique based on factors including surgeon preference, patient factors, and concomitant injuries.2 Interlocking screws are generally placed to allow control of both rotation and length.1 Advantages of intramedullary treatment of femoral diaphyseal fractures compared with plate fixation include low rates of infection, lower nonunion rate, and faster patient mobilization and weight-bearing.3
Complications of antegrade intramedullary fixation of femoral shaft fractures include infection, nonunion, malunion, anterior cortical perforation, heterotopic ossification, abductor weakness, and soft tissue irritation from interlocking screws.2-4 Femoral intramedullary nails are not routinely removed because the hardware is rarely symptomatic and removing the nail involves additional surgical morbidity with the potential for complications.5 Interlocking screws are removed in select cases due to soft tissue irritation, generally after fracture union. Although hardware removal may help in select cases, removal of intramedullary nails is associated with low rates of symptom resolution.6-8
We present a case of iatrogenic medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) disruption by the distal interlocking screw leading to patellar instability, a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing for femoral diaphyseal fractures. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
CASE REPORT
We present a case of a 23-year-old man whose status was 2 years post antegrade reamed femoral intramedullary nailing at an outside institution for a right diaphyseal femur fracture. This issue was revised for external rotational malalignment, and he presented with right anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar subluxation, and recurrent effusions. The extent of external rotational malalignment and subsequent rotational correction were not evident from the available outside institution records. These symptoms began after his femoral nail revision for malalignment, and he had no subsequent trauma. The femoral fracture healed uneventfully. The patient denied any history of knee pain, swelling, or patellar instability before his femoral nail revision for malalignment. These episodes of effusion, instability, and pain occurred several times per year, generally with activities of daily living (ADL). On one occasion, he presented to a local emergency room where knee aspiration revealed no evidence of crystals or infection. The patient was referred to the senior author (Dr. Nho) for consultation.
Physical examination revealed right knee full extension with flexion to 80°. A moderate right knee effusion was present. The patient was tender over the medial femoral epicondyle and the superomedial aspect of the patella without joint line tenderness. Lateral patellar instability was present with 2 quadrants of translation (compared with 1 on the contralateral side) and patellar apprehension. The patient’s knee was ligamentously stable, and meniscal signs were absent. His lower extremity rotational profile was symmetric to the contralateral uninjured side.
Right femur and knee X-rays showed an antegrade intramedullary nail with a well-healed diaphyseal fracture and a single distal interlocking screw oriented from posterolateral to anteromedial (Figures 1A-1G). The screw tip was prominent on sunrise X-ray view anterior to the medial femoral epicondyle (Figure 1C). Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a large effusion and lateral patellar subluxation with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL near the femoral attachment (Figure 2). Patellar height, trochlear morphology, and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance were assessed and found to be normal.
Continue to: The patient elected...
The patient elected to have a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed the distal interlocking screw to be intra-articular medially, prominent by 3 mm causing attritional disruption of the mid-substance MPFL (Figure 3A). The patella was noted to be subluxated and tracking laterally (Figure 3B). Both the anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament were intact, and menisci and articular cartilage were normal. The distal interlocking screw was removed under fluoroscopic guidance through a small lateral incision (Figure 3C).
Due to the nature of the longstanding attritional disruption of the MPFL in this case with associated patellar instability over a 2-year period, the decision was made to proceed with formal MPFL reconstruction as opposed to repair. A 2-cm incision was made at the medial aspect of the patella. The proximal half of the patella was decorticated. Guide pins were placed within the proximal half of the patella, ensuring at least a 1-cm bone bridge between them, and two 4.75-mm SwiveLock suture anchors (Arthrex) were inserted. A semitendinosus graft was used for MPFL reconstruction with the 2 ends of the graft secured to 2 suture anchors with a whipstitch. Lateral fluoroscopy was used to identify Schöttle’s point, denoting the femoral origin of the MPFL9 (Figure 3D). A 2-cm incision was made at this location. A guide pin was then placed at Schöttle’s point under fluoroscopic guidance, aimed proximally, and the knee was brought through a range of motion (ROM), to verify graft isometry. Once verified, the guide pin was over-reamed to 8 mm. The layer between the retinaculum and the capsule was carefully dissected, and the graft was passed extra-articularly in the plane between the retinaculum and the capsule, out through the medial incision, and docked into the bone tunnel. An 8-mm BioComposite interference screw (Arthrex) was then placed with the knee flexed to 30°. The knee was then passed through a ROM and an arthroscopic evaluation confirmed that the patella was no longer subluxated laterally. There was normal tracking of the patellofemoral joint on arthroscopic evaluation.
Postoperatively, the patient was maintained in a hinged knee brace for 6 weeks. He was weight-bearing as tolerated when locked in full extension beginning immediately postoperatively, and allowed to unlock the brace to start non-weight-bearing active flexion and extension with therapy on postoperative day 1. Radiographs confirmed removal of the distal interlocking screw (Figures 4A, 4B). Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability at 1-year postoperative, and was able to return to his ADL and recreational sporting activities (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] ADL, 100; KOOS sporting and recreational activities, 95; quality of life, 100; Marx Activity Rating Scale, 12).
DISCUSSION
The MPFL connects the superomedial edge of the patella to the medial femur and is injured in nearly 100% of patellar dislocations.6 The femoral origin lies between the adductor tubercle and the medial epicondyle.7 The MPFL prevents lateral subluxation of the patella and acts as the major restraint during the first 20° of knee flexion. Although radiographic parameters for identifying the MPFL femoral origin have been defined by both Schöttle and colleagues9 and Stephen and colleagues10, it is important to check the isometry intraoperatively through a ROM when performing MPFL reconstruction. In this case, the patient’s history and physical examination showed patellar instability, which was determined to be iatrogenically related to the distal interlocking screw rupture of the MPFL. Following screw removal and MPFL reconstruction, the patient had no further symptoms of pain, effusion, or patellar instability and returned to his normal activities.
Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures is a common complication,4 with a 22% incidence of malrotation of at least 15° in 1 series from an academic trauma center.11 There are mixed data as to whether malrotation is more common in complex fracture patterns, in cases performed during night hours, and in cases performed by non-trauma fellowship-trained surgeons.11-13 The natural history of malrotation is not well elucidated, but there is some suggestion that it alters load bearing in the distal joints of the involved leg including the patellofemoral joint. Patients also may not tolerate malrotation due to the abnormal foot progression angle, particularly with malrotation >15°.4 In this case, the patient’s initial femoral nail was placed in an externally rotated position, requiring revision. The result of this was an unusual trajectory of the distal interlocking screw from posterolateral to anteromedial. Combined with the prominent screw tip, the trajectory of this distal interlocking screw likely contributed to the injury to the MPFL observed in this case. This trajectory would also pose potential risk to the common peroneal nerve, which is usually situated posterior to the insertion point for distal femoral interlocking screws. The prominent distal interlock screw is a well-recognized problem with femoral intramedullary nails. This issue results from the tapering of the width of the distal femur from being larger posteriorly to being smaller anteriorly. To avoid placement of a prominent distal interlocking screw, surgeons often will obtain an intraoperative anterior-posterior radiograph with the lower extremity in 30° of internal rotation to account for the angle of the medial aspect of the distal femur.
This practice represents, to our knowledge, a previously unreported cause of patellar instability as well as an unreported complication of antegrade femoral intramedullary nailing. Surgeons treating these conditions should consider this potential complication and pursue advanced imaging if patients present with these complaints after femoral intramedullary nail placement. Knowledge of both MPFL origin and insertional anatomy and avoidance of prominent distal interlocking screws in the region of the MPFL, if possible, would likely prevent this complication.
Limitations of this study include the case report design, which makes it impossible to comment on the incidence of this complication or to make comparisons regarding treatment options. There is, of course, the possibility that the patient had a concurrent MPFL injury from the injury in which he sustained the femur fracture. Nevertheless, the clinical history, examination, imaging, and arthroscopic findings all strongly suggest that the prominent distal interlocking screw was the cause of his MPFL injury and patellar instability. Finally, the point widely defined by Schöttle and colleagues12 was used for MPFL reconstruction in this case based on an intraoperative true lateral radiograph of the distal femur. It should be noted that recent literature has debated the accuracy of this method for determining the femoral origin, the anatomy of the MPFL in relation to the quadriceps, and type of fixation for MPFL reconstruction with some advocating soft tissue only fixation.14-17 For purposes of this case report, we focused on a different cause of MPFL disruption in this patient and our technique for MPFL reconstruction.
CONCLUSION
This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.
This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.
ABSTRACT
Antegrade reamed intramedullary nailing has the advantages of high fracture union and early weight-bearing, making it the gold standard for fixation of diaphyseal femur fractures. However, knowledge of distal femoral anatomy may mitigate the risk of secondary complications.
We present a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing in which a 23-year-old man sustained iatrogenic rupture of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) caused by the distal interlocking screw of the femoral nail. The patient had a history of antegrade intramedullary nailing that was revised for rotational malalignment, after which he began experiencing recurrent episodes of atraumatic bloody joint effusion and swelling of the right knee with associated patellar instability. Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a large effusion with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL. The patient underwent a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability, and was able to return to his activities.
This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.
Continue to: Reamed intramedullary nails...
Reamed intramedullary nails are the gold standard for fixation of femoral diaphyseal fractures.1 Antegrade or retrograde nails are effective options, with the choice of technique based on factors including surgeon preference, patient factors, and concomitant injuries.2 Interlocking screws are generally placed to allow control of both rotation and length.1 Advantages of intramedullary treatment of femoral diaphyseal fractures compared with plate fixation include low rates of infection, lower nonunion rate, and faster patient mobilization and weight-bearing.3
Complications of antegrade intramedullary fixation of femoral shaft fractures include infection, nonunion, malunion, anterior cortical perforation, heterotopic ossification, abductor weakness, and soft tissue irritation from interlocking screws.2-4 Femoral intramedullary nails are not routinely removed because the hardware is rarely symptomatic and removing the nail involves additional surgical morbidity with the potential for complications.5 Interlocking screws are removed in select cases due to soft tissue irritation, generally after fracture union. Although hardware removal may help in select cases, removal of intramedullary nails is associated with low rates of symptom resolution.6-8
We present a case of iatrogenic medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) disruption by the distal interlocking screw leading to patellar instability, a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing for femoral diaphyseal fractures. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
CASE REPORT
We present a case of a 23-year-old man whose status was 2 years post antegrade reamed femoral intramedullary nailing at an outside institution for a right diaphyseal femur fracture. This issue was revised for external rotational malalignment, and he presented with right anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar subluxation, and recurrent effusions. The extent of external rotational malalignment and subsequent rotational correction were not evident from the available outside institution records. These symptoms began after his femoral nail revision for malalignment, and he had no subsequent trauma. The femoral fracture healed uneventfully. The patient denied any history of knee pain, swelling, or patellar instability before his femoral nail revision for malalignment. These episodes of effusion, instability, and pain occurred several times per year, generally with activities of daily living (ADL). On one occasion, he presented to a local emergency room where knee aspiration revealed no evidence of crystals or infection. The patient was referred to the senior author (Dr. Nho) for consultation.
Physical examination revealed right knee full extension with flexion to 80°. A moderate right knee effusion was present. The patient was tender over the medial femoral epicondyle and the superomedial aspect of the patella without joint line tenderness. Lateral patellar instability was present with 2 quadrants of translation (compared with 1 on the contralateral side) and patellar apprehension. The patient’s knee was ligamentously stable, and meniscal signs were absent. His lower extremity rotational profile was symmetric to the contralateral uninjured side.
Right femur and knee X-rays showed an antegrade intramedullary nail with a well-healed diaphyseal fracture and a single distal interlocking screw oriented from posterolateral to anteromedial (Figures 1A-1G). The screw tip was prominent on sunrise X-ray view anterior to the medial femoral epicondyle (Figure 1C). Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a large effusion and lateral patellar subluxation with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL near the femoral attachment (Figure 2). Patellar height, trochlear morphology, and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance were assessed and found to be normal.
Continue to: The patient elected...
The patient elected to have a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed the distal interlocking screw to be intra-articular medially, prominent by 3 mm causing attritional disruption of the mid-substance MPFL (Figure 3A). The patella was noted to be subluxated and tracking laterally (Figure 3B). Both the anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament were intact, and menisci and articular cartilage were normal. The distal interlocking screw was removed under fluoroscopic guidance through a small lateral incision (Figure 3C).
Due to the nature of the longstanding attritional disruption of the MPFL in this case with associated patellar instability over a 2-year period, the decision was made to proceed with formal MPFL reconstruction as opposed to repair. A 2-cm incision was made at the medial aspect of the patella. The proximal half of the patella was decorticated. Guide pins were placed within the proximal half of the patella, ensuring at least a 1-cm bone bridge between them, and two 4.75-mm SwiveLock suture anchors (Arthrex) were inserted. A semitendinosus graft was used for MPFL reconstruction with the 2 ends of the graft secured to 2 suture anchors with a whipstitch. Lateral fluoroscopy was used to identify Schöttle’s point, denoting the femoral origin of the MPFL9 (Figure 3D). A 2-cm incision was made at this location. A guide pin was then placed at Schöttle’s point under fluoroscopic guidance, aimed proximally, and the knee was brought through a range of motion (ROM), to verify graft isometry. Once verified, the guide pin was over-reamed to 8 mm. The layer between the retinaculum and the capsule was carefully dissected, and the graft was passed extra-articularly in the plane between the retinaculum and the capsule, out through the medial incision, and docked into the bone tunnel. An 8-mm BioComposite interference screw (Arthrex) was then placed with the knee flexed to 30°. The knee was then passed through a ROM and an arthroscopic evaluation confirmed that the patella was no longer subluxated laterally. There was normal tracking of the patellofemoral joint on arthroscopic evaluation.
Postoperatively, the patient was maintained in a hinged knee brace for 6 weeks. He was weight-bearing as tolerated when locked in full extension beginning immediately postoperatively, and allowed to unlock the brace to start non-weight-bearing active flexion and extension with therapy on postoperative day 1. Radiographs confirmed removal of the distal interlocking screw (Figures 4A, 4B). Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability at 1-year postoperative, and was able to return to his ADL and recreational sporting activities (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] ADL, 100; KOOS sporting and recreational activities, 95; quality of life, 100; Marx Activity Rating Scale, 12).
DISCUSSION
The MPFL connects the superomedial edge of the patella to the medial femur and is injured in nearly 100% of patellar dislocations.6 The femoral origin lies between the adductor tubercle and the medial epicondyle.7 The MPFL prevents lateral subluxation of the patella and acts as the major restraint during the first 20° of knee flexion. Although radiographic parameters for identifying the MPFL femoral origin have been defined by both Schöttle and colleagues9 and Stephen and colleagues10, it is important to check the isometry intraoperatively through a ROM when performing MPFL reconstruction. In this case, the patient’s history and physical examination showed patellar instability, which was determined to be iatrogenically related to the distal interlocking screw rupture of the MPFL. Following screw removal and MPFL reconstruction, the patient had no further symptoms of pain, effusion, or patellar instability and returned to his normal activities.
Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures is a common complication,4 with a 22% incidence of malrotation of at least 15° in 1 series from an academic trauma center.11 There are mixed data as to whether malrotation is more common in complex fracture patterns, in cases performed during night hours, and in cases performed by non-trauma fellowship-trained surgeons.11-13 The natural history of malrotation is not well elucidated, but there is some suggestion that it alters load bearing in the distal joints of the involved leg including the patellofemoral joint. Patients also may not tolerate malrotation due to the abnormal foot progression angle, particularly with malrotation >15°.4 In this case, the patient’s initial femoral nail was placed in an externally rotated position, requiring revision. The result of this was an unusual trajectory of the distal interlocking screw from posterolateral to anteromedial. Combined with the prominent screw tip, the trajectory of this distal interlocking screw likely contributed to the injury to the MPFL observed in this case. This trajectory would also pose potential risk to the common peroneal nerve, which is usually situated posterior to the insertion point for distal femoral interlocking screws. The prominent distal interlock screw is a well-recognized problem with femoral intramedullary nails. This issue results from the tapering of the width of the distal femur from being larger posteriorly to being smaller anteriorly. To avoid placement of a prominent distal interlocking screw, surgeons often will obtain an intraoperative anterior-posterior radiograph with the lower extremity in 30° of internal rotation to account for the angle of the medial aspect of the distal femur.
This practice represents, to our knowledge, a previously unreported cause of patellar instability as well as an unreported complication of antegrade femoral intramedullary nailing. Surgeons treating these conditions should consider this potential complication and pursue advanced imaging if patients present with these complaints after femoral intramedullary nail placement. Knowledge of both MPFL origin and insertional anatomy and avoidance of prominent distal interlocking screws in the region of the MPFL, if possible, would likely prevent this complication.
Limitations of this study include the case report design, which makes it impossible to comment on the incidence of this complication or to make comparisons regarding treatment options. There is, of course, the possibility that the patient had a concurrent MPFL injury from the injury in which he sustained the femur fracture. Nevertheless, the clinical history, examination, imaging, and arthroscopic findings all strongly suggest that the prominent distal interlocking screw was the cause of his MPFL injury and patellar instability. Finally, the point widely defined by Schöttle and colleagues12 was used for MPFL reconstruction in this case based on an intraoperative true lateral radiograph of the distal femur. It should be noted that recent literature has debated the accuracy of this method for determining the femoral origin, the anatomy of the MPFL in relation to the quadriceps, and type of fixation for MPFL reconstruction with some advocating soft tissue only fixation.14-17 For purposes of this case report, we focused on a different cause of MPFL disruption in this patient and our technique for MPFL reconstruction.
CONCLUSION
This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.
This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.
- Brumback RJ, Virkus WW. Intramedullary nailing of the femur: reamed versus nonreamed. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8(2):83-90.
- Ricci WM, Bellabarba C, Evanoff B, Herscovici D, DiPasquale T, Sanders R. Retrograde versus antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001;15(3):161-169.
- Ricci WM, Gallagher B, Haidukewych GJ. Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(5):296-305.
- Lindsey JD, Krieg JC. Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nail fixation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(1):17-26.
- Busam ML, Esther RJ, Obremskey WT. Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(2):113-120.
- Morshed S, Humphrey M, Corrales LA, Millett M, Hoffinger SA. Retention of flexible intramedullary nails following treatment of pediatric femur fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(7):509-514.
- Boerger TO, Patel G, Murphy JP. Is routine removal of intramedullary nails justified. Injury. 1999;30(2):79-81.
- Kellan J. Fracture healing: Does hardware removal enhance patient outcomes. Chin J Orthop Trauma (Chin). 2010;12:374-378.
- Schöttle PB, Schmeling A, Rosenstiel N, Weiler A. Radiographic landmarks for femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(5):801-804. doi:10.1177/0363546506296415.
- Stephen JM, Lumpaopong P, Deehan DJ, Kader D, Amis AA. The medial patellofemoral ligament: location of femoral attachment and length change patterns resulting from anatomic and nonanatomic attachments. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(8):1871-1879. doi:10.1177/0363546512449998.
- Hüfner T, Citak M, Suero EM, et al. Femoral malrotation after unreamed intramedullary nailing: an evaluation of influencing operative factors. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(4):224-227. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181e47e3b.
- Ayalon OB, Patel NM, Yoon RS, Donegan DJ, Koerner JD, Liporace FA. Comparing femoral version after intramedullary nailing performed by trauma-trained and non-trauma trained surgeons: is there a difference? Injury. 2014;45(7):1091-1094. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2014.01.024.
- Patel NM, Yoon RS, Cantlon MB, Koerner JD, Donegan DJ, Liporace FA. Intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal femur fractures secondary to gunshot wounds: predictors of postoperative malrotation. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(12):711-714. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000124.
- Ziegler CG, Fulkerson JP, Edgar C. Radiographic reference points are inaccurate with and without a true lateral radiograph: the importance of anatomy in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):133-142.
- Fulkerson JP, Edgar C. Medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament: surgical anatomy and reconstruction technique to prevent patella instability. Arthrosc Tech. 2013;2(2):e125-e128. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2013.01.002.
- Tanaka MJ, Voss A, Fulkerson JP. The anatomic midpoint of the attachment of the medial patellofemoral complex. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(14):1199-1205. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01182.
- Mochizuki T, Nimura A, Tateishi T, Yamaguchi K, Muneta T, Akita K. Anatomic study of the attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament and its characteristic relationships to the vastus intermedius. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(2):305-310. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-1993-7.
- Brumback RJ, Virkus WW. Intramedullary nailing of the femur: reamed versus nonreamed. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8(2):83-90.
- Ricci WM, Bellabarba C, Evanoff B, Herscovici D, DiPasquale T, Sanders R. Retrograde versus antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001;15(3):161-169.
- Ricci WM, Gallagher B, Haidukewych GJ. Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(5):296-305.
- Lindsey JD, Krieg JC. Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nail fixation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(1):17-26.
- Busam ML, Esther RJ, Obremskey WT. Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(2):113-120.
- Morshed S, Humphrey M, Corrales LA, Millett M, Hoffinger SA. Retention of flexible intramedullary nails following treatment of pediatric femur fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(7):509-514.
- Boerger TO, Patel G, Murphy JP. Is routine removal of intramedullary nails justified. Injury. 1999;30(2):79-81.
- Kellan J. Fracture healing: Does hardware removal enhance patient outcomes. Chin J Orthop Trauma (Chin). 2010;12:374-378.
- Schöttle PB, Schmeling A, Rosenstiel N, Weiler A. Radiographic landmarks for femoral tunnel placement in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(5):801-804. doi:10.1177/0363546506296415.
- Stephen JM, Lumpaopong P, Deehan DJ, Kader D, Amis AA. The medial patellofemoral ligament: location of femoral attachment and length change patterns resulting from anatomic and nonanatomic attachments. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(8):1871-1879. doi:10.1177/0363546512449998.
- Hüfner T, Citak M, Suero EM, et al. Femoral malrotation after unreamed intramedullary nailing: an evaluation of influencing operative factors. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(4):224-227. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181e47e3b.
- Ayalon OB, Patel NM, Yoon RS, Donegan DJ, Koerner JD, Liporace FA. Comparing femoral version after intramedullary nailing performed by trauma-trained and non-trauma trained surgeons: is there a difference? Injury. 2014;45(7):1091-1094. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2014.01.024.
- Patel NM, Yoon RS, Cantlon MB, Koerner JD, Donegan DJ, Liporace FA. Intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal femur fractures secondary to gunshot wounds: predictors of postoperative malrotation. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(12):711-714. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000124.
- Ziegler CG, Fulkerson JP, Edgar C. Radiographic reference points are inaccurate with and without a true lateral radiograph: the importance of anatomy in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):133-142.
- Fulkerson JP, Edgar C. Medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament: surgical anatomy and reconstruction technique to prevent patella instability. Arthrosc Tech. 2013;2(2):e125-e128. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2013.01.002.
- Tanaka MJ, Voss A, Fulkerson JP. The anatomic midpoint of the attachment of the medial patellofemoral complex. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(14):1199-1205. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01182.
- Mochizuki T, Nimura A, Tateishi T, Yamaguchi K, Muneta T, Akita K. Anatomic study of the attachment of the medial patellofemoral ligament and its characteristic relationships to the vastus intermedius. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(2):305-310. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-1993-7.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Anterograde intramedullary nailing is the gold standard for fixation of diaphyseal femur fractures.
- Damage to the MPFL can be caused by the distal interlocking screw of an anterograde intramedullary nail.
- The trajectory of the distal interlocking screw from posterolateral to anteromedial, and a prominent screw tip, likely contributed to the injury to the MPFL observed in this case.
- Surgeons treating these conditions should pursue advanced imaging if patients present with effusion and patellar instability after femoral intramedullary nail placement.
- Distal interlocking screw removal and arthroscopic MPFL reconstruction can result in successful return of function and normal activities.
Imaging for Nonarthritic Hip Pathology
Take-Home Points
- Be sure to have a well centered AP pelvis without rotation.
- Get at least 3 plain radiographs—AP pelvis, false profile, and lateral hip view.
- Ensure that there is sufficient acetabular coverage, LCEA >20° on AP pelvis and ACEA >20° on false profile view.
- CT scans are helpful for precise hip pathomorphology but must be weighed against risk of radiation exposure.
- MRI or MRA can be helpful to diagnose intra-articular as well as extra-articular hip and pelvis abnormalities.
In the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain, the value of diagnostic imaging is in objective findings, which can support or weaken the leading diagnoses based on subjective complaints, recalled history, and, in some cases, elusive physical examination findings. Morphologic changes alone, however, do not always indicate pathology.1,2 At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.
Radiography
The first step in diagnostic imaging is radiography. Although use of plain radiographs is routine, their value cannot be understated. Standard hip radiographs—an anteroposterior (AP) radiograph of the pelvis and AP and frog-leg (cross-table lateral) radiographs of the hip—provide a wealth of information.3-6
Evaluated first is the radiograph itself. For example, the ideal AP radiograph of the pelvis (Figure 1) is centered on the lower sacrum, and the patient is not rotated.
AP radiographs allow for evaluation of fractures, intraosseous sclerosis, acetabular depth, inclination and version, acetabular overcoverage, joint-space narrowing, femoroacetabular congruency, femoral head sphericity, and femoral head–neck offset.7,8,10 Inspection for labral calcification is important, as it can indicate repetitive damage at the extremes of range of motion.
On AP pelvis radiographs, it is important to distinguish coxa profunda from acetabular protrusion. These entities are on the same pathomorphologic spectrum and are similar but distinctively different. Coxa profunda refers to the depth of the acetabulum relative to the ilioischial line, and acetabular protrusion refers to the depth (or medial position) of the femoral head relative to the ilioischial line. Each condition suggests—but is not diagnostic for—pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).11Acetabular rotation is another important entity that can be evaluated on well-centered, nontilted AP pelvic radiographs. Acetabular rotation refers to the opening direction of the acetabulum. It may be anterior (anteverted), neutral, or posterior (retroverted). Anteversion is present when the anterior acetabular rim does not traverse the posterior rim shadow4; in other words, the ring formed by the acetabulum is not twisted. When the walls overlap but do not intersect, the cup has neutral version. Retroversion is qualitatively determined by the crossover (figure-of-8) and posterior wall signs12 and is associated with pincer-type FAI and the development of hip osteoarthritis.12Dunn lateral radiographs (Figure 2A), taken with 90° hip flexion, were originally used to measure femoral neck anteversion.13
False-profile radiographs (Figure 6), valuable in evaluating anterior acetabular coverage and femoral head–neck junction morphology,14,15 allow characterization of both cam-type and pincer-type FAI.
Quantitative measures warrant specific consideration (Table). Femoroacetabular morphology is quantitatively measured by α angle, Tönnis angle (acetabular inclination angle), and lateral center-edge angle (LCEA).7,8,10 The α angle (Figure 4) detects the loss of normal anterosuperior femoral head–neck junction concavity caused by a convex osseous prominence. An α angle >50° represents a cam deformity.16 In a cohort study of 338 patients, Nepple and colleagues17 qualitatively associated increased α angle with severe intra-articular hip disease. Murphy and colleagues18 found a Tönnis angle >15° to be a poor prognostic factor in untreated hip dysplasia. LCEA quantifies superolateral femoral head coverage,19 and its normal range is 20° to 40°.20 LCEA <20° indicates dysplasia of the femoroacetabular joint, and LCEA >40° indicates overcoverage and pincer-type FAI. As with any quantitative radiographic measurement, results should be interpreted within the presenting clinical context.
Radiographic findings, even findings based on these special radiographs, may underestimate the pathologic process.
Computed Tomography
The benefits of computed tomography (CT) outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. CT is most useful in characterizing osseous morphology.21 In FAI cases, CT can distinguish acetabular version abnormalities from femoral torsion (Figures 7A-7C), entities with very different treatment approaches.21
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MRI is becoming essential in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain.11,22 It is used for assessment of osseous, chondral, and musculotendinous soft tissues. Further, it affords appreciation of outside-the-hip-joint pathology that may mimic joint-centered pathology.
MRI techniques range from noncontrast to indirect and direct magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).22 Indirect MRA is performed with contrast medium administered through an intravenous line. Direct MRA has contrast administered intra-articularly and is more sensitive and specific for labral tears and ligamentous injury.23 Excellent detection of intra-articular pathology on noncontrast studies questions the need for MRA.24 Nevertheless, direct MRA can also be used as a therapeutic procedure when lidocaine is included in the injected gadolinium.
Labral tears, focal chondral defects, and stress or insufficiency fractures are important differentials in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain. Over the dysplasia-to-FAI spectrum, MRI distinguishes symptomatic pathoanatomy from asymptomatic anatomical variants by revealing underlying bone edema. Capsule findings should also be considered.21The most practical classification of labral tears, proposed by Blankenbaker and colleagues,25 is based on tear type (frayed, unstable, flap), location, and extent. More than half of labral tears occur in the anterosuperior quadrant of the labrum.25
Chondral damage is identified much as labral tears are. With chondral injury, the normal intermediate signal is interrupted by a fluid-intense signal extending to the subchondral bone. A fat-saturated T2or short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequence is useful in emphasizing this finding.27
MRI detects osseous pathology from surrounding soft-tissue edema and bone remodeling to stress and fragility fractures. In athletes, the most common fractures are pubic rami, sacral, and apophyseal avulsion fractures.28 In all patients, attention should be given to the lower spine and the proximal femurs. Aside from MRI, nuclear medicine bone scan might also identify active osseous reaction representative of a fracture.
Conclusion
The work-up for nonarthritic hip pain substantiates differential diagnoses. A case’s complexity determines the course of diagnostic imaging. At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.
Am J Orthop . 2017;46(1):17-22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
1. McCall DA, Safran MR. MRI and arthroscopy correlations of the hip: a case-based approach. Instr Course Lect . 2012;61:327-344.
2. Register B, Pennock AT, Ho CP, Strickland CD, Lawand A, Philippon MJ. Prevalence of abnormal hip findings in asymptomatic participants: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Sports Med . 2012;40(12):2720-2724.
3. Campbell SE. Radiography of the hip: lines, signs, and patterns of disease. Semin Roentgenol . 2005;40(3):290-319.
4. Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaulé PE, et al. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2008;90(suppl 4):47-66.
5. Malviya A, Raza A, Witt JD. Reliability in the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement and dysplasia among hip surgeons: role of surgeon volume and experience. Hip Int . 2016;26(3):284-289.
6. Nepple JJ, Martel JM, Kim YJ, Zaltz I, Clohisy JC, Group AS. Do plain radiographs correlate with CT for imaging of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2012;470(12):3313-3320.
7. Kosuge D, Cordier T, Solomon LB, Howie DW. Dilemmas in imaging for peri-acetabular osteotomy: the influence of patient position and imaging technique on the radiological features of hip dysplasia. Bone Joint J . 2014;96(9):1155-1160.
8. Tannast M, Fritsch S, Zheng G, Siebenrock KA, Steppacher SD. Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt? Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2015;473(4):1255-1266.
9. Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2003;(407):241-248.
10. Griffin JW, Weber AE, Kuhns B, Lewis P, Nho SJ. Imaging in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a comprehensive approach. Clin Sports Med . 2016;35(3):331-344.
11. Nepple JJ, Lehmann CL, Ross JR, Schoenecker PL, Clohisy JC. Coxa profunda is not a useful radiographic parameter for diagnosing pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2013;95(5):417-423.
12. Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br . 1999;81(2):281-288.
13. Dunn DM. Anteversion of the neck of the femur; a method of measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Br . 1952;34(2):181-186.
14. Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M. Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2006;(445):181-185.
15. Hellman MD, Mascarenhas R, Gupta A, et al. The false-profile view may be used to identify cam morphology. Arthroscopy . 2015;31(9):1728-1732.
16. Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaulé PE. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2011;469(2):464-469.
17. Nepple JJ, Carlisle JC, Nunley RM, Clohisy JC. Clinical and radiographic predictors of intra-articular hip disease in arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med . 2011;39(2):296-303.
18. Murphy SB, Ganz R, Muller ME. The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 1995;77(7):985-989.
19. Mast NH, Impellizzeri F, Keller S, Leunig M. Reliability and agreement of measures used in radiographic evaluation of the adult hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2011;469(1):188-199.
20. Monazzam S, Bomar JD, Cidambi K, Kruk P, Hosalkar H. Lateral center-edge angle on conventional radiography and computed tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2013;471(7):2233-2237.
21. Weber AE, Jacobson JA, Bedi A. A review of imaging modalities for the hip. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med . 2013;6(3):226-234.
22. Bencardino JT, Palmer WE. Imaging of hip disorders in athletes. Radiol Clin North Am . 2002;40(2):267-287, vi-vii.
23. Byrd JW, Jones KS. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography, and intra-articular injection in hip arthroscopy patients. Am J Sports Med . 2004;32(7):1668-1674.
24. Mintz DN, Hooper T, Connell D, Buly R, Padgett DE, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: detection of labral and chondral abnormalities using noncontrast imaging. Arthroscopy . 2005;21(4):385-393.
25. Blankenbaker DG, De Smet AA, Keene JS, Fine JP. Classification and localization of acetabular labral tears. Skeletal Radiol . 2007;36(5):391-397.
26. Aydingöz U, Oztürk MH. MR imaging of the acetabular labrum: a comparative study of both hips in 180 asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Radiol . 2001;11(4):567-574.
27. Gold GE, Chen CA, Koo S, Hargreaves BA, Bangerter NK. Recent advances in MRI of articular cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2009;193(3):628-638.
28. Liong SY, Whitehouse RW. Lower extremity and pelvic stress fractures in athletes. Br J Radiol . 2012;85(1016):1148-1156.
Take-Home Points
- Be sure to have a well centered AP pelvis without rotation.
- Get at least 3 plain radiographs—AP pelvis, false profile, and lateral hip view.
- Ensure that there is sufficient acetabular coverage, LCEA >20° on AP pelvis and ACEA >20° on false profile view.
- CT scans are helpful for precise hip pathomorphology but must be weighed against risk of radiation exposure.
- MRI or MRA can be helpful to diagnose intra-articular as well as extra-articular hip and pelvis abnormalities.
In the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain, the value of diagnostic imaging is in objective findings, which can support or weaken the leading diagnoses based on subjective complaints, recalled history, and, in some cases, elusive physical examination findings. Morphologic changes alone, however, do not always indicate pathology.1,2 At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.
Radiography
The first step in diagnostic imaging is radiography. Although use of plain radiographs is routine, their value cannot be understated. Standard hip radiographs—an anteroposterior (AP) radiograph of the pelvis and AP and frog-leg (cross-table lateral) radiographs of the hip—provide a wealth of information.3-6
Evaluated first is the radiograph itself. For example, the ideal AP radiograph of the pelvis (Figure 1) is centered on the lower sacrum, and the patient is not rotated.
AP radiographs allow for evaluation of fractures, intraosseous sclerosis, acetabular depth, inclination and version, acetabular overcoverage, joint-space narrowing, femoroacetabular congruency, femoral head sphericity, and femoral head–neck offset.7,8,10 Inspection for labral calcification is important, as it can indicate repetitive damage at the extremes of range of motion.
On AP pelvis radiographs, it is important to distinguish coxa profunda from acetabular protrusion. These entities are on the same pathomorphologic spectrum and are similar but distinctively different. Coxa profunda refers to the depth of the acetabulum relative to the ilioischial line, and acetabular protrusion refers to the depth (or medial position) of the femoral head relative to the ilioischial line. Each condition suggests—but is not diagnostic for—pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).11Acetabular rotation is another important entity that can be evaluated on well-centered, nontilted AP pelvic radiographs. Acetabular rotation refers to the opening direction of the acetabulum. It may be anterior (anteverted), neutral, or posterior (retroverted). Anteversion is present when the anterior acetabular rim does not traverse the posterior rim shadow4; in other words, the ring formed by the acetabulum is not twisted. When the walls overlap but do not intersect, the cup has neutral version. Retroversion is qualitatively determined by the crossover (figure-of-8) and posterior wall signs12 and is associated with pincer-type FAI and the development of hip osteoarthritis.12Dunn lateral radiographs (Figure 2A), taken with 90° hip flexion, were originally used to measure femoral neck anteversion.13
False-profile radiographs (Figure 6), valuable in evaluating anterior acetabular coverage and femoral head–neck junction morphology,14,15 allow characterization of both cam-type and pincer-type FAI.
Quantitative measures warrant specific consideration (Table). Femoroacetabular morphology is quantitatively measured by α angle, Tönnis angle (acetabular inclination angle), and lateral center-edge angle (LCEA).7,8,10 The α angle (Figure 4) detects the loss of normal anterosuperior femoral head–neck junction concavity caused by a convex osseous prominence. An α angle >50° represents a cam deformity.16 In a cohort study of 338 patients, Nepple and colleagues17 qualitatively associated increased α angle with severe intra-articular hip disease. Murphy and colleagues18 found a Tönnis angle >15° to be a poor prognostic factor in untreated hip dysplasia. LCEA quantifies superolateral femoral head coverage,19 and its normal range is 20° to 40°.20 LCEA <20° indicates dysplasia of the femoroacetabular joint, and LCEA >40° indicates overcoverage and pincer-type FAI. As with any quantitative radiographic measurement, results should be interpreted within the presenting clinical context.
Radiographic findings, even findings based on these special radiographs, may underestimate the pathologic process.
Computed Tomography
The benefits of computed tomography (CT) outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. CT is most useful in characterizing osseous morphology.21 In FAI cases, CT can distinguish acetabular version abnormalities from femoral torsion (Figures 7A-7C), entities with very different treatment approaches.21
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MRI is becoming essential in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain.11,22 It is used for assessment of osseous, chondral, and musculotendinous soft tissues. Further, it affords appreciation of outside-the-hip-joint pathology that may mimic joint-centered pathology.
MRI techniques range from noncontrast to indirect and direct magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).22 Indirect MRA is performed with contrast medium administered through an intravenous line. Direct MRA has contrast administered intra-articularly and is more sensitive and specific for labral tears and ligamentous injury.23 Excellent detection of intra-articular pathology on noncontrast studies questions the need for MRA.24 Nevertheless, direct MRA can also be used as a therapeutic procedure when lidocaine is included in the injected gadolinium.
Labral tears, focal chondral defects, and stress or insufficiency fractures are important differentials in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain. Over the dysplasia-to-FAI spectrum, MRI distinguishes symptomatic pathoanatomy from asymptomatic anatomical variants by revealing underlying bone edema. Capsule findings should also be considered.21The most practical classification of labral tears, proposed by Blankenbaker and colleagues,25 is based on tear type (frayed, unstable, flap), location, and extent. More than half of labral tears occur in the anterosuperior quadrant of the labrum.25
Chondral damage is identified much as labral tears are. With chondral injury, the normal intermediate signal is interrupted by a fluid-intense signal extending to the subchondral bone. A fat-saturated T2or short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequence is useful in emphasizing this finding.27
MRI detects osseous pathology from surrounding soft-tissue edema and bone remodeling to stress and fragility fractures. In athletes, the most common fractures are pubic rami, sacral, and apophyseal avulsion fractures.28 In all patients, attention should be given to the lower spine and the proximal femurs. Aside from MRI, nuclear medicine bone scan might also identify active osseous reaction representative of a fracture.
Conclusion
The work-up for nonarthritic hip pain substantiates differential diagnoses. A case’s complexity determines the course of diagnostic imaging. At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.
Am J Orthop . 2017;46(1):17-22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
Take-Home Points
- Be sure to have a well centered AP pelvis without rotation.
- Get at least 3 plain radiographs—AP pelvis, false profile, and lateral hip view.
- Ensure that there is sufficient acetabular coverage, LCEA >20° on AP pelvis and ACEA >20° on false profile view.
- CT scans are helpful for precise hip pathomorphology but must be weighed against risk of radiation exposure.
- MRI or MRA can be helpful to diagnose intra-articular as well as extra-articular hip and pelvis abnormalities.
In the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain, the value of diagnostic imaging is in objective findings, which can support or weaken the leading diagnoses based on subjective complaints, recalled history, and, in some cases, elusive physical examination findings. Morphologic changes alone, however, do not always indicate pathology.1,2 At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.
Radiography
The first step in diagnostic imaging is radiography. Although use of plain radiographs is routine, their value cannot be understated. Standard hip radiographs—an anteroposterior (AP) radiograph of the pelvis and AP and frog-leg (cross-table lateral) radiographs of the hip—provide a wealth of information.3-6
Evaluated first is the radiograph itself. For example, the ideal AP radiograph of the pelvis (Figure 1) is centered on the lower sacrum, and the patient is not rotated.
AP radiographs allow for evaluation of fractures, intraosseous sclerosis, acetabular depth, inclination and version, acetabular overcoverage, joint-space narrowing, femoroacetabular congruency, femoral head sphericity, and femoral head–neck offset.7,8,10 Inspection for labral calcification is important, as it can indicate repetitive damage at the extremes of range of motion.
On AP pelvis radiographs, it is important to distinguish coxa profunda from acetabular protrusion. These entities are on the same pathomorphologic spectrum and are similar but distinctively different. Coxa profunda refers to the depth of the acetabulum relative to the ilioischial line, and acetabular protrusion refers to the depth (or medial position) of the femoral head relative to the ilioischial line. Each condition suggests—but is not diagnostic for—pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).11Acetabular rotation is another important entity that can be evaluated on well-centered, nontilted AP pelvic radiographs. Acetabular rotation refers to the opening direction of the acetabulum. It may be anterior (anteverted), neutral, or posterior (retroverted). Anteversion is present when the anterior acetabular rim does not traverse the posterior rim shadow4; in other words, the ring formed by the acetabulum is not twisted. When the walls overlap but do not intersect, the cup has neutral version. Retroversion is qualitatively determined by the crossover (figure-of-8) and posterior wall signs12 and is associated with pincer-type FAI and the development of hip osteoarthritis.12Dunn lateral radiographs (Figure 2A), taken with 90° hip flexion, were originally used to measure femoral neck anteversion.13
False-profile radiographs (Figure 6), valuable in evaluating anterior acetabular coverage and femoral head–neck junction morphology,14,15 allow characterization of both cam-type and pincer-type FAI.
Quantitative measures warrant specific consideration (Table). Femoroacetabular morphology is quantitatively measured by α angle, Tönnis angle (acetabular inclination angle), and lateral center-edge angle (LCEA).7,8,10 The α angle (Figure 4) detects the loss of normal anterosuperior femoral head–neck junction concavity caused by a convex osseous prominence. An α angle >50° represents a cam deformity.16 In a cohort study of 338 patients, Nepple and colleagues17 qualitatively associated increased α angle with severe intra-articular hip disease. Murphy and colleagues18 found a Tönnis angle >15° to be a poor prognostic factor in untreated hip dysplasia. LCEA quantifies superolateral femoral head coverage,19 and its normal range is 20° to 40°.20 LCEA <20° indicates dysplasia of the femoroacetabular joint, and LCEA >40° indicates overcoverage and pincer-type FAI. As with any quantitative radiographic measurement, results should be interpreted within the presenting clinical context.
Radiographic findings, even findings based on these special radiographs, may underestimate the pathologic process.
Computed Tomography
The benefits of computed tomography (CT) outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. CT is most useful in characterizing osseous morphology.21 In FAI cases, CT can distinguish acetabular version abnormalities from femoral torsion (Figures 7A-7C), entities with very different treatment approaches.21
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MRI is becoming essential in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain.11,22 It is used for assessment of osseous, chondral, and musculotendinous soft tissues. Further, it affords appreciation of outside-the-hip-joint pathology that may mimic joint-centered pathology.
MRI techniques range from noncontrast to indirect and direct magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).22 Indirect MRA is performed with contrast medium administered through an intravenous line. Direct MRA has contrast administered intra-articularly and is more sensitive and specific for labral tears and ligamentous injury.23 Excellent detection of intra-articular pathology on noncontrast studies questions the need for MRA.24 Nevertheless, direct MRA can also be used as a therapeutic procedure when lidocaine is included in the injected gadolinium.
Labral tears, focal chondral defects, and stress or insufficiency fractures are important differentials in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain. Over the dysplasia-to-FAI spectrum, MRI distinguishes symptomatic pathoanatomy from asymptomatic anatomical variants by revealing underlying bone edema. Capsule findings should also be considered.21The most practical classification of labral tears, proposed by Blankenbaker and colleagues,25 is based on tear type (frayed, unstable, flap), location, and extent. More than half of labral tears occur in the anterosuperior quadrant of the labrum.25
Chondral damage is identified much as labral tears are. With chondral injury, the normal intermediate signal is interrupted by a fluid-intense signal extending to the subchondral bone. A fat-saturated T2or short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequence is useful in emphasizing this finding.27
MRI detects osseous pathology from surrounding soft-tissue edema and bone remodeling to stress and fragility fractures. In athletes, the most common fractures are pubic rami, sacral, and apophyseal avulsion fractures.28 In all patients, attention should be given to the lower spine and the proximal femurs. Aside from MRI, nuclear medicine bone scan might also identify active osseous reaction representative of a fracture.
Conclusion
The work-up for nonarthritic hip pain substantiates differential diagnoses. A case’s complexity determines the course of diagnostic imaging. At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.
Am J Orthop . 2017;46(1):17-22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
1. McCall DA, Safran MR. MRI and arthroscopy correlations of the hip: a case-based approach. Instr Course Lect . 2012;61:327-344.
2. Register B, Pennock AT, Ho CP, Strickland CD, Lawand A, Philippon MJ. Prevalence of abnormal hip findings in asymptomatic participants: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Sports Med . 2012;40(12):2720-2724.
3. Campbell SE. Radiography of the hip: lines, signs, and patterns of disease. Semin Roentgenol . 2005;40(3):290-319.
4. Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaulé PE, et al. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2008;90(suppl 4):47-66.
5. Malviya A, Raza A, Witt JD. Reliability in the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement and dysplasia among hip surgeons: role of surgeon volume and experience. Hip Int . 2016;26(3):284-289.
6. Nepple JJ, Martel JM, Kim YJ, Zaltz I, Clohisy JC, Group AS. Do plain radiographs correlate with CT for imaging of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2012;470(12):3313-3320.
7. Kosuge D, Cordier T, Solomon LB, Howie DW. Dilemmas in imaging for peri-acetabular osteotomy: the influence of patient position and imaging technique on the radiological features of hip dysplasia. Bone Joint J . 2014;96(9):1155-1160.
8. Tannast M, Fritsch S, Zheng G, Siebenrock KA, Steppacher SD. Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt? Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2015;473(4):1255-1266.
9. Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2003;(407):241-248.
10. Griffin JW, Weber AE, Kuhns B, Lewis P, Nho SJ. Imaging in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a comprehensive approach. Clin Sports Med . 2016;35(3):331-344.
11. Nepple JJ, Lehmann CL, Ross JR, Schoenecker PL, Clohisy JC. Coxa profunda is not a useful radiographic parameter for diagnosing pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2013;95(5):417-423.
12. Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br . 1999;81(2):281-288.
13. Dunn DM. Anteversion of the neck of the femur; a method of measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Br . 1952;34(2):181-186.
14. Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M. Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2006;(445):181-185.
15. Hellman MD, Mascarenhas R, Gupta A, et al. The false-profile view may be used to identify cam morphology. Arthroscopy . 2015;31(9):1728-1732.
16. Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaulé PE. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2011;469(2):464-469.
17. Nepple JJ, Carlisle JC, Nunley RM, Clohisy JC. Clinical and radiographic predictors of intra-articular hip disease in arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med . 2011;39(2):296-303.
18. Murphy SB, Ganz R, Muller ME. The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 1995;77(7):985-989.
19. Mast NH, Impellizzeri F, Keller S, Leunig M. Reliability and agreement of measures used in radiographic evaluation of the adult hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2011;469(1):188-199.
20. Monazzam S, Bomar JD, Cidambi K, Kruk P, Hosalkar H. Lateral center-edge angle on conventional radiography and computed tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2013;471(7):2233-2237.
21. Weber AE, Jacobson JA, Bedi A. A review of imaging modalities for the hip. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med . 2013;6(3):226-234.
22. Bencardino JT, Palmer WE. Imaging of hip disorders in athletes. Radiol Clin North Am . 2002;40(2):267-287, vi-vii.
23. Byrd JW, Jones KS. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography, and intra-articular injection in hip arthroscopy patients. Am J Sports Med . 2004;32(7):1668-1674.
24. Mintz DN, Hooper T, Connell D, Buly R, Padgett DE, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: detection of labral and chondral abnormalities using noncontrast imaging. Arthroscopy . 2005;21(4):385-393.
25. Blankenbaker DG, De Smet AA, Keene JS, Fine JP. Classification and localization of acetabular labral tears. Skeletal Radiol . 2007;36(5):391-397.
26. Aydingöz U, Oztürk MH. MR imaging of the acetabular labrum: a comparative study of both hips in 180 asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Radiol . 2001;11(4):567-574.
27. Gold GE, Chen CA, Koo S, Hargreaves BA, Bangerter NK. Recent advances in MRI of articular cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2009;193(3):628-638.
28. Liong SY, Whitehouse RW. Lower extremity and pelvic stress fractures in athletes. Br J Radiol . 2012;85(1016):1148-1156.
1. McCall DA, Safran MR. MRI and arthroscopy correlations of the hip: a case-based approach. Instr Course Lect . 2012;61:327-344.
2. Register B, Pennock AT, Ho CP, Strickland CD, Lawand A, Philippon MJ. Prevalence of abnormal hip findings in asymptomatic participants: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Sports Med . 2012;40(12):2720-2724.
3. Campbell SE. Radiography of the hip: lines, signs, and patterns of disease. Semin Roentgenol . 2005;40(3):290-319.
4. Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaulé PE, et al. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2008;90(suppl 4):47-66.
5. Malviya A, Raza A, Witt JD. Reliability in the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement and dysplasia among hip surgeons: role of surgeon volume and experience. Hip Int . 2016;26(3):284-289.
6. Nepple JJ, Martel JM, Kim YJ, Zaltz I, Clohisy JC, Group AS. Do plain radiographs correlate with CT for imaging of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement? Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2012;470(12):3313-3320.
7. Kosuge D, Cordier T, Solomon LB, Howie DW. Dilemmas in imaging for peri-acetabular osteotomy: the influence of patient position and imaging technique on the radiological features of hip dysplasia. Bone Joint J . 2014;96(9):1155-1160.
8. Tannast M, Fritsch S, Zheng G, Siebenrock KA, Steppacher SD. Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt? Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2015;473(4):1255-1266.
9. Siebenrock KA, Kalbermatten DF, Ganz R. Effect of pelvic tilt on acetabular retroversion: a study of pelves from cadavers. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2003;(407):241-248.
10. Griffin JW, Weber AE, Kuhns B, Lewis P, Nho SJ. Imaging in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a comprehensive approach. Clin Sports Med . 2016;35(3):331-344.
11. Nepple JJ, Lehmann CL, Ross JR, Schoenecker PL, Clohisy JC. Coxa profunda is not a useful radiographic parameter for diagnosing pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2013;95(5):417-423.
12. Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br . 1999;81(2):281-288.
13. Dunn DM. Anteversion of the neck of the femur; a method of measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Br . 1952;34(2):181-186.
14. Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M. Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2006;(445):181-185.
15. Hellman MD, Mascarenhas R, Gupta A, et al. The false-profile view may be used to identify cam morphology. Arthroscopy . 2015;31(9):1728-1732.
16. Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaulé PE. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2011;469(2):464-469.
17. Nepple JJ, Carlisle JC, Nunley RM, Clohisy JC. Clinical and radiographic predictors of intra-articular hip disease in arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med . 2011;39(2):296-303.
18. Murphy SB, Ganz R, Muller ME. The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 1995;77(7):985-989.
19. Mast NH, Impellizzeri F, Keller S, Leunig M. Reliability and agreement of measures used in radiographic evaluation of the adult hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2011;469(1):188-199.
20. Monazzam S, Bomar JD, Cidambi K, Kruk P, Hosalkar H. Lateral center-edge angle on conventional radiography and computed tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2013;471(7):2233-2237.
21. Weber AE, Jacobson JA, Bedi A. A review of imaging modalities for the hip. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med . 2013;6(3):226-234.
22. Bencardino JT, Palmer WE. Imaging of hip disorders in athletes. Radiol Clin North Am . 2002;40(2):267-287, vi-vii.
23. Byrd JW, Jones KS. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography, and intra-articular injection in hip arthroscopy patients. Am J Sports Med . 2004;32(7):1668-1674.
24. Mintz DN, Hooper T, Connell D, Buly R, Padgett DE, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of the hip: detection of labral and chondral abnormalities using noncontrast imaging. Arthroscopy . 2005;21(4):385-393.
25. Blankenbaker DG, De Smet AA, Keene JS, Fine JP. Classification and localization of acetabular labral tears. Skeletal Radiol . 2007;36(5):391-397.
26. Aydingöz U, Oztürk MH. MR imaging of the acetabular labrum: a comparative study of both hips in 180 asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Radiol . 2001;11(4):567-574.
27. Gold GE, Chen CA, Koo S, Hargreaves BA, Bangerter NK. Recent advances in MRI of articular cartilage. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2009;193(3):628-638.
28. Liong SY, Whitehouse RW. Lower extremity and pelvic stress fractures in athletes. Br J Radiol . 2012;85(1016):1148-1156.