Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017, Article ID 8562329, 6 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8562329
Research Article

Prevalence of Cam and Pincer Deformities in the X-Rays of Asymptomatic Individuals

1Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Center, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
2Institute of Biostatistics, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Ludolf-Krehl-Straße 13-17, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
3Sporthopaedicum Straubing, Bahnhofplatz 27, 94315 Straubing, Germany
4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria

Correspondence should be addressed to Alexander Brunner; ed.bew@rennurb.r-a

Received 23 June 2017; Accepted 28 November 2017; Published 18 December 2017

Academic Editor: Sae Hoon Kim

Copyright © 2017 Steffen Thier et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective. The presence of radiological signs of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is not necessarily associated with symptoms. Hence, the prevalence of cam and pincer deformities in the overall population may be underestimated. The purpose of this study was to screen an unselected cohort of people without hip symptoms for native radiological signs of cam and pincer deformities to determine their actual prevalence. Materials and Methods. 110 asymptomatic patients had AP pelvis X-rays and cross-table hip X-rays performed. We evaluated the images for the presence of cross-over signs and measured lateral center edge (LCE) angles, alpha angles (α-angles), and femoral offset ratios. Results. Positive cross-over signs were seen in 34%; LCE angles > 40° in 13%; and femoral offset ratios < 0.18 in 43%. In 41% of the patients, α-angles were >50°. Male patients showed significantly higher α-angles, lower offset ratios, and a higher prevalence of cross-over signs. In contrast, female patients had significantly higher LCE angles. Conclusion. According to our data, radiological signs of cam and pincer deformities are common in asymptomatic people. In clinical practice, patients presenting with hip pain and radiological signs of FAI should undergo further diagnostic evaluation. However, in asymptomatic patients, no further evaluation is recommended.

1. Introduction

During the last decade, femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has been commonly recognized as a cause of chronic hip pain and a possible predisposing condition for the development of early osteoarthritis [15]. During internal rotation and flexion of the hip, repetitive abutment between the femoral neck junction and the acetabular rim may lead to a cascade of degenerative changes including labrum disruption, chondromalacia, and peripheral acetabular cartilage delamination [1, 6, 7]. In general, FAI may be caused by two major types of anatomic abnormalities. Cam-type FAI is characterized by an aspherical configuration of the femoral head-neck junction, and pincer-type FAI is associated with acetabular overcoverage or retroversion. Interestingly, several studies have shown that most patients actually have a combined form (mixed FAI) of the two types [4, 611].

However, the presence of these anatomic abnormalities is not necessarily associated with clinical symptoms. In daily life, a considerable percentage of people with cam or pincer deformities may not feel any pain, and their anatomic pathology may remain undetected. Recently, a number of studies have been performed to evaluate the prevalence of cam or pincer deformities in asymptomatic people. Hack et al. reported a prevalence of 14% after screening 200 volunteers from their hospital staff using MRI [12]. Likewise, Reichenbach et al. evaluated a cohort of asymptomatic recruits with MRI and found a prevalence of 24% [13]. In regular participants of high impact sports (such as football, ice hockey, or skiing), even higher percentages—between 55% and 87%—have been reported [1416].

Most of the studies that have screened populations for cam or pincer deformities used MRI or CT scans. However, in daily clinical practice, patients who present with hip pain will first have native X-rays obtained [4, 6, 17, 18]. To improve the interpretation accuracy of these X-rays, it may be helpful to know the prevalence of deformities associated with FAI on plain films in the average asymptomatic population. Until recently, studies evaluating X-rays of asymptomatic people for cam and pincer deformities were limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to screen an unselected cohort of people without hip symptoms for native radiological signs associated with cam and/or pincer FAI. We hypothesized that a significant percentage of asymptomatic people would have radiological signs of FAI on native X-rays.

2. Material and Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University Heidelberg (Process number 2011-370N-MA) and is in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Between 2010 and 2011, AP pelvis and cross-table radiographs were routinely performed for patients who presented to our emergency department with acute trauma to the hip or femur. The X-rays and medical files of these patients were retrospectively evaluated.

Inclusion criteria for the study included the presence of AP pelvis and cross-table radiographs of adequate quality, information on the patient’s medical history, and patient age greater than 18 years.

Patients who reported having hip symptoms (e.g., pain or limited range of motion) before the presenting trauma and those who sustained femoral or acetabular fractures during the presenting trauma were excluded. Further exclusion criteria included prior hip surgery, a history of hip fracture, congenital hip pathologies (dysplasia, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, and slipped capital femoral epiphysis), grade IV osteoarthritis on X-ray according to the Kellgren–Lawrence scale [19], and neurological pathologies that could affect physiological loading of the hip.

Finally, 110 patients (60 women, 50 men) with 114 hips (60 left, 54 right) and a mean age of 56 years (range: 18–100 years, SD: 22.4 years) were included in this study.

2.1. X-Rays

Standard AP pelvic radiographs were performed with the patients in supine position and the hip extended and internally rotated 15°. The film-focus distance was 1.2 meters, with the central beam directed toward the intersection of the line connecting both anterior-superior iliac spines and a vertical line through the symphysis [2, 22].

X-ray quality was considered adequate when both obturator foramen and iliac crests were symmetrically projected, and the coccyx was projected 1-2 cm caudal to the symphysis [2].

Cross-table lateral radiographs were performed with the patient in the supine position and the hip extended and internally rotated 15°. The contralateral hips and knees were flexed beyond 80°. The central X-ray beam was positioned parallel to the ground with an inclination of 65°, according to the axis of the femur, and directed toward the inguinal fold [7, 23].

2.2. Radiological Evaluation

Radiographs were assessed on a SYNGO-Viewer workstation (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). A third person not involved further in the evaluations removed patient data from the X-rays. To assess the prevalence of pincer deformities, two orthopaedic surgery consultants independently evaluated the AP pelvis X-rays in random order for the presence of the cross-over signs (Figure 1(a)) [8, 11, 24] and measured the lateral center-edge (LCE) angles as proposed by Wiberg (Figure 1(b)) [20]. A LCE angle of 40° or higher was considered to represent a pincer deformity. To assess the prevalence of cam deformities, cross-table lateral radiographs were evaluated for femoral asphericity by the measurement of α-angles (Figure 2(a)), as described by Nötzli et al. [21], and by the ratio between the anterior offset and the diameter of the femoral head (i.e., the offset ratio; Figure 2(b)). An offset ratio < 0.18 was considered pathological [22]. Finally, all radiographs were assessed for grade of osteoarthritis according to the Kellgren–Lawrence grading scale [19].

Figure 1
Figure 2

Mean values of the measured parameters (LCE angles, α-angles, and offset ratios) were used for further analyses. In cases with inconsistencies regarding the presence of a cross-over signs or the grade of osteoarthritis, X-rays were reevaluated by both orthopaedic surgeons together and a consensus decision was made.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

A Shapiro–Wilk analysis was performed to test linear data for normal distribution. We calculated mean values for linear data. The number of patients with positive cross-over signs, LCE angles ≥ 40°, and offset ratios < 0.18 were calculated. Student’s -test was used to compare mean values for linear data, and the chi-square test was used to compare frequencies for nominal data. Since the α-angle cut-off considered pathological varies in the literature, we calculated the number of patients with α-angles >50°, >58°, >62°, >70°, and >83°. A Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess for correlations among α-angles, LCE angles, offset ratios, patient age, and the grade of osteoarthritis. A correlation coefficient < 0.3 was considered to indicate a weak correlation; 0.3–0.7, a moderate correlation; and >0.7, a high correlation. A value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

Shapiro–Wilk analyses showed significant normal distributions for patient age (), α-angles (), and offset ratios (). There were 33 hips (13 men, 17 women) without signs of OA (Kellgren–Lawrence grade 0). However, 20 hips (11 men, 9 women) showed OA grade 1; 37 hips (14 men, 22 women), OA grade 2; and 24 hips (12 men, 12 women), OA grade 3. There were 39 patients (39 hips; 25 men, 14 women; 34% of all hips) with a positive cross-over sign. The prevalence of cross-over signs was significantly higher in male patients than in female patients ().

The mean LCE angle was 30.7° (range: 13°–52°), and the mean offset ratio was 0.18 (range: −0.07–0.33; Table 1). There were 15 patients (13%; 5 men, 10 women) with LCE angles ≥ 40° and 49 patients (43%; 30 men, 19 women) with an offset ratio < 0.18. Female patients showed significantly higher LCE angles compared with males (). In contrast, male patients showed significantly lower offset ratios compared with females (; Table 1).

Table 1: Mean LCE angles, α-angles, and offset ratios for male patients, female patients, and all patients. The right column shows values for comparisons between men and women.

The mean α-angle was 50.9° (range: 33°–89°). There were 47 patients (30 men, 17 women) with α-angles > 50° (mean: 69.5°; range: 51°–89°); 28 patients (21 men, 7 women) with α-angles > 58° (mean: 63.3°; range: 59°–89°); and 4 patients (2 men, 2 women) with α-angles > 83° (mean: 63.3°; range: 84°–89°). Figure 3 shows the percentage of patients with α-angles exceeding different cut-off values. Male patients had significantly higher α-angles compared with females ().

Figure 3: The percentage of patients with α-angles exceeding different cut-off values.

Correlation analysis showed a moderate correlation between LCE angles and patient age (, ). No correlation was found between age and offset ratios (, ) or between age and α-angles (, ).

Similarly, no significant correlation was found between the stage of osteoarthritis and LCE angles (, ), offset ratios (, ), or α-angles (, ).

In summary, 82 patients (71.9%) showed at least one radiological sign of cam or pincer deformity, 52 patients (45.6%) showed two, and 18 patients (15.8%) showed three; none of the patients showed more than three signs (Tables 2, 3, and 4).

Table 2: Overall prevalence of FAI signs.
Table 3: Prevalence of CAM-type FAI signs.
Table 4: Prevalence of pincer-type FAI signs.

4. Discussion

These data confirm our hypothesis that a number of asymptomatic people would have signs of cam and pincer deformities on native hip X-rays. This is in accordance with data from studies that have reported FAI signs on hip X-rays of 42.6% to 53% of asymptomatic individuals [23, 25, 26].

The mechanical basis of FAI is the result of a complex, dynamic interaction between the femoral head-neck junction and the acetabular labrum or rim [27, 28], which is difficult to assess using two-dimensional imaging techniques. In recent years, assessment of cam deformities has often been performed by measuring α-angles at the anterior aspect of the femoral head-neck junction [5, 21, 2931]. However, several studies have shown that the area of maximum extension of the cam deformity may vary between patients and that the greatest loss of head-neck asphericity is present at either the anterior aspect of the head-neck junction or the anterior-superior surface [3234]. As a result, a straight axial X-ray of the femoral head-neck junction may underproject the maximum extension of the cam deformity in some cases. Likewise, standard anteroposterior X-rays do generally not project the deformity leading to cam FAI [3537]. Consequently, several native X-ray views have been proposed to measure the α-angle, such as the frog-leg lateral view [17], the 45° and 90° Dunn views [38], and the cross-table lateral view [18]. Meyer et al. [35] evaluated a number of native X-ray views and found the highest sensitivity in cam deformity detection for the 45° Dunn view and the cross-table view in 15° internal rotation. Since the cross-table view showed the highest inter- and intraobserver reliability [35], we decided to use it for our study. A number of studies [23, 25, 26] have evaluated cam deformities in asymptomatic people on the basis of 45° Dunn views, but studies using internally rotated cross-table views remain sparse.

However, according to the complex, three-dimensional interaction between femoral head-neck junction and acetabular rim, the area with the maximum deformity is not necessarily the area that causes the impingement. Therefore, it is difficult to define a clear threshold when to consider a deformity pathological. Sole measurement of the deformities maximum extension may result in overestimation of the pathology.

In general, the data from this study are consistent with findings from several CT- and MRI-based studies [12, 13, 29, 31] that have reported the prevalence of cam deformities in asymptomatic patients to be between 10% and 31%. In contrast to cam FAI, which seems clearly associated with a loss of the femoral head-neck offset [21], the pincer type is more difficult to assess [1, 29, 39]. A prior study has shown a correlation between LCE angles on plain AP X-rays and acetabular overcoverage [40]. Likewise, the cross-over sign has shown a high sensitivity and specificity in detecting acetabular retroversion [29]. In contrast, recent studies have questioned the value of these two measures in the assessment of pincer deformities [24, 41]. Isolated coxa profunda seems to rarely be associated with pincer FAI [39].

In our study, 13% of patients had an LCE angle > 40°, which is comparable to the 14% reported by Diesel et al. [39]. In contrast, 34% of the asymptomatic patients in our study showed positive cross-over signs, which is higher than the 12.6%–18.5% reported from previous research [25, 26, 39]. Signs of pincer impingement were significantly more frequent in females, and cam deformities were significantly more frequent in males. No correlation between age and α-angle was found. These observations are in line with results from several other studies [25, 30, 34, 39].

What remains unclear is whether asymptomatic people with cam or pincer deformities do not actually impinge, or if they remain asymptomatic because the impingement occurs without causing pain. Furthermore, it is unknown if patients with painless FAI are more likely to develop early OA compared with people without anatomical deformities [42, 43].

A recent meta-analysis evaluated the role of prophylactic surgery for asymptomatic FAI [44]. Considering the lack of available evidence and known complication rates as high as 6.4% after arthroscopic surgery [45], prophylactic surgery could not be recommended for asymptomatic patients with FAI [44].

The major limitations of the current study were the relatively small sample size and its retrospective design.

5. Conclusion

According to our data, radiological signs of cam and pincer FAI are frequently found in asymptomatic individuals. In clinical practice, patients presenting with hip pain and native radiological signs of FAI should undergo further diagnostic evaluation. In asymptomatic patients with radiological signs of FAI, however, no further diagnostic studies are recommended.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. M. Beck, M. Kalhor, M. Leunig, and R. Ganz, “Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage. Femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (British Volume), vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 1012–1018, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. R. Ganz, P. Bamert, P. Hausner, B. Isler, and F. Vrevc, “Cervico-acetabular impingement after femoral neck fracture,” Unfallchirurg, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 172–175, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. Ganz, J. Parvizi, M. Beck, M. Leunig, H. Nötzli, and K. A. Siebenrock, “Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 417, pp. 112–120, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. D. A. Goodman, J. E. Feighan, A. D. Smith, B. Latimer, R. L. Buly, and D. R. Cooperman, “Subclinical slipped capital femoral epiphysis. Relationship to osteoarthrosis of the hip,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 79, no. 10, pp. 1489–1497, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. M. Leunig, P. E. Beaulé, and R. Ganz, “The concept of Femoroacetabular impingement: Current status and future perspectives,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 467, no. 3, pp. 616–622, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. Leunig, M. M. Casillas, M. Hamlet et al., “Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: early mechanical damage to the acetabular cartilage by a prominent femoral metaphysis,” Acta Orthopaedica, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 370–375, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. S. W. Snow, D. Keret, S. Scarangella, and J. R. Bowen, “Anterior impingement of the femoral head: A late phenomenon of Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease,” Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 286–289, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. N. J. Giori and R. T. Trousdale, “Acetabular retroversion is associated with osteoarthritis of the hip,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 417, pp. 263–269, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. K. A. Siebenrock, R. Schoeniger, and R. Ganz, “Anterior femoro-acetabular impingement due to acetabular retroversion. Treatment with periacetabular osteotomy,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 278–286, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. H. Eijer, D. A. Podeszwa, R. Ganz, and M. Leunig, “Evaluation and treatment of young adults with femoro-acetabular impingement secondary to Perthes' disease,” Hip International, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 273–280, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. D. Reynolds, J. Lucas, and K. Klaue, “Retroversion of the acetabulum,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (British Volume), vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 281–288, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. K. Hack, G. Di Primio, K. Rakhra, and P. E. Beaulé, “Prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic volunteers,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 92, no. 14, pp. 2436–2444, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. S. Reichenbach, P. Juni, S. Werlen, E. Nuesch, C. W. Pfirrmann, S. Trelle et al., “Prevalence of cam-type deformity on hip magnetic resonance imaging in young males: a cross-sectional study,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 1319–1327, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  14. J. J. Nepple, J. M. Vigdorchik, and J. C. Clohisy, “What is the association between sports participation and the development of proximal femoral cam deformity?” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 2833–2840, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. J. Philippon, C. P. Ho, K. K. Briggs, J. Stull, and R. F. Laprade, “Prevalence of increased alpha angles as a measure of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement in youth ice hockey players,” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1357–1362, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. K. A. Siebenrock, I. Kaschka, L. Frauchiger, S. Werlen, and J. M. Schwab, “Prevalence of cam-type deformity and hip pain in elite ice hockey players before and after the end of growth,” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 2308–2313, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. C. Clohisy, R. M. Nunley, R. J. Otto, and P. L. Schoenecker, “The frog-leg lateral radiograph accurately visualized hip cam impingement abnormalities,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 462, pp. 115–121, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. H. Eijer, M. Leunig, M. Mahomed, and R. Ganz, Crosstable lateral radiograph for screening of anterior femoral head-neck offset in patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Hip Int. 2001; 11: 37–41.
  19. J. H. Kellgren and J. S. Lawrence, “Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 494–502, 1957. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. G. Wiberg, “Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint: with special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis,” Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica, vol. 83, 58, 1939. View at Google Scholar
  21. H. P. Nötzli, T. F. Wyss, C. H. Stoecklin, M. R. Schmid, K. Treiber, and J. Hodler, “The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 556–560, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. M. Tannast, K. A. Siebenrock, and S. E. Anderson, “Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 188, no. 6, pp. 1540–1552, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. A. C. Johnson, M. A. Shaman, and T. G. Ryan, “Femoroacetabular impingement in former high-level youth soccer players,” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1342–1346, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. I. Zaltz, B. T. Kelly, I. Hetsroni, and A. Bedi, “The crossover sign overestimates acetabular retroversion hip,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 471, no. 8, pp. 2463–2470, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. C. V. Diesel, T. A. Ribeiro, R. B. Scheidt, C. A. De Souza Macedo, and C. R. Galia, “The prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in radiographs of asymptomatic subjects: A cross-sectional study,” Hip International, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 258–263, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. R. B. Scheidt, C. R. Galia, C. V. Diesel, R. Rosito, and C. A. D. S. Macedo, “Prevalence of radiographic markers of femoroacetabular impingement in asymptomatic adults,” Revista do CBC, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 36–42, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. M. Lamontagne, N. Brisson, M. J. Kennedy, and P. E. Beaulé, “Preoperative and postoperative lower-extremity joint and pelvic kinematics during maximal squatting of patients with cam femoro-acetabular impingement,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 40–45, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. M. Lamontagne, M. J. Kennedy, and P. E. Beaule, “The effect of cam FAI on hip and pelvic motion during maximum squat,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 467, no. 3, pp. 645–650, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. A. C. L. Kang, A. J. Gooding, M. H. Coates, T. D. Goh, P. Armour, and J. Rietveld, “Computed tomography assessment of hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement,” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1160–1165, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. J. Kim, J.-A. Choi, E. Lee, and K. R. Lee, “Prevalence of imaging features on CT thought to be associated with femoroacetabular impingement: A retrospective analysis of 473 asymptomatic adult hip joints,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 205, no. 1, pp. W100–W105, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. P. Omoumi, C. Thiery, N. Michoux, J. Malghem, F. E. Lecouvet, and B. C. Vande Berg, “Anatomic features associated with femoroacetabular impingement are equally common in hips of old and young asymptomatic individuals without CT signs of osteoarthritis,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 202, no. 5, pp. 1078–1086, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. C. W. A. Pfirrmann, B. Mengiardi, C. Dora, F. Kalberer, M. Zanetti, and J. Hodler, “Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: Characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients,” Radiology, vol. 240, no. 3, pp. 778–785, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. K. S. Rakhra, A. M. Sheikh, D. Allen, and P. E. Beaulé, “Comparison of MRI alpha angle measurement planes in femoroacetabular impingement,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 467, no. 3, pp. 660–665, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. R. Morales-Avalos, J. I. Leyva-Villegas, G. Sánchez-Mejorada et al., “Prevalence, topographic and morphometric features of femoral cam-type deformity: changes in relation to age and gender,” Anatomical Science International, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 391–397, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. D. C. Meyer, M. Beck, T. Ellis, R. Ganz, and M. Leunig, “Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 445, pp. 181–185, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. S. J. Haider, A. H. Siegel, K. F. Spratt, J. B. Ames, J. A. Graham, and Y. Y. Cheung, “Detection of femoroplasty on pre- and post-arthroscopic comparison radiographs following treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: multi-reader accuracy and agreement study,” Skeletal Radiology, pp. 1–10, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. C. Barton, M. J. Salineros, K. S. Rakhra, and P. E. Beaulé, “Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 469, no. 2, pp. 464–469, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. D. M. Dunn, “Anterversion of the neck of the femur, a method of measurement,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British Volume), vol. 34, pp. 181–186, 1952. View at Google Scholar
  39. C. V. Diesel, T. A. Ribeiro, C. Coussirat, R. B. Scheidt, C. A. S. Macedo, and C. R. Galia, “Coxa profunda in the diagnosis of pincertype femoroacetabular impingement and its prevalence in asymptomatic subjects,” The Bone & Joint Journal, vol. 97-B, no. 4, pp. 478–483, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. M. J. Philippon, A. B. Wolff, K. K. Briggs, C. T. Zehms, and D. A. Kuppersmith, “Acetabular rim reduction for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement correlates with preoperative and postoperative center-edge angle,” Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 757–761, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. V. Chadayammuri, T. Garabekyan, M. Jesse et al., “Measurement of lateral acetabular coverage: a comparison between CT and plain radiography,” Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 392–400, 2015. View at Google Scholar
  42. N. V. Bardakos and R. N. Villar, “Predictors of progression of osteoarthritis in femoroacetabular impingement: A radiological study with a minimum of ten years follow-up,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (British Volume), vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 162–169, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. G. Hartofilakidis, N. V. Bardakos, G. C. Babis, and G. Georgiades, “An examination of the association between different morphotypes of femoroacetabular impingement in asymptomatic subjects and the development of osteoarthritis of the hip,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (British Volume), vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 580–586, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. J. A. Collins, J. P. Ward, and T. Youm, “Is prophylactic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement indicated?: A systematic review,” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 3009–3015, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. T. G. Sampson, “Complications of hip arthroscopy,” Clinics in Sports Medicine, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 831–835, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus