» Articles » PMID: 29794857

Revisiting the Anteroinferior Iliac Spine: Is the Subspine Pathologic? A Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation

Overview
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2018 May 26
PMID 29794857
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Subspine impingement is a recognized source of extraarticular hip impingement. Although CT-based classification systems have been described, to our knowledge, no study has evaluated the morphology of the anteroinferior iliac spine (AIIS) with plain radiographs nor to our knowledge has any study compared its appearance between plain radiographs and CT scan and correlated AIIS morphology with physical findings. Previous work has suggested a correlation of AIIS morphology and hip ROM but this has not been clinically validated. Furthermore, if plain radiographs can be found to adequately screen for AIIS morphology, CT could be selectively used, limiting radiation exposure.

Questions/purposes: The purposes of this study were (1) to determine the prevalence of AIIS subtypes in a cohort of patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement; (2) to compare AP pelvis and false profile radiographs with three-dimensional (3-D) CT classification; and (3) to correlate the preoperative hip physical examination with AIIS subtypes.

Methods: A retrospective study of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome was performed. Between February 2013 and November 2016, 601 patients underwent hip arthroscopy. To be included here, each patient had to have undergone a primary hip arthroscopy for the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Each patient needed to have an interpretable set of plain radiographs consisting of weightbearing AP pelvis and false profile radiographs as well as full documentation of physical findings in the medical record. Patients who additionally had a CT scan with 3-D reconstructions were included as well. During the period in question, it was the preference of the treating surgeon whether a preoperative CT scan was obtained. A total of 145 of 601 (24%) patients were included in the analysis; of this cohort, 54% (78 of 145) had a CT scan and 63% (92 of 145) were women with a mean age of 31 ± 10 years. The AIIS was classified first on patients in whom the 3-D CT scan was available based on a previously published 3-D CT classification. The AIIS was then classified by two orthopaedic surgeons (TGM, MRK) on AP and false profile radiographs based on the position of its inferior margin to a line at the lateral aspect of the acetabular sourcil normal to vertical. Type I was above, Type II at the level, and Type III below this line. There was fair interrater agreement for AP pelvis (κ = 0.382; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.239-0.525), false profile (κ = 0.372; 95% CI, 0.229-0.515), and 3-D CT (κ = 0.325; 95% CI, 0.156-0.494). There was moderate to almost perfect intraobserver repeatability for AP pelvis (κ = 0.516; 95% CI, 0.284-0.748), false profile (κ = 0.915; 95% CI, 0.766-1.000), and 3-D CT (κ = 0.915; 95% CI, 0.766-1.000). The plane radiographs were then compared with the 3-D CT scan classification and accuracy, defined as the proportion of correct classification out of total classifications. Preoperative hip flexion, internal rotation, external rotation, flexion adduction, internal rotation, subspine, and Stinchfield physical examination tests were compared with classification of the AIIS on 3-D CT. Finally, preoperative hip flexion, internal rotation, and external rotation were compared with preoperative lateral center-edge angle and alpha angle.

Results: The prevalence of AIIS was 56% (44 of 78) Type I, 39% (30 of 78) Type II, and 5% (four of 78) Type III determined from the 3-D CT classification. For the plain radiographic classification, the distribution of AIIS morphology was 64% (93 of 145) Type I, 32% (46 of 145) Type II, and 4% (six of 145) Type III on AP pelvis and 49% (71 of 145) Type I, 48% (70 of 145) Type II, and 3% (four of 145) Type III on false profile radiographs. False profile radiographs were more accurate than AP pelvis radiographs for classification when compared against the gold standard of 3-D CT at 98% (95% CI, 96-100) versus 80% (95% CI, 75-85). The false profile radiograph had better sensitivity for Type II (97% versus 47%, p < 0.001) and specificity for Types I and II AIIS (97% versus 53%, p < 0.001; 98% versus 90%, p = 0.046) morphology compared with AP pelvis radiographs. There was no correlation between AIIS type as determined by 3-D CT scan and hip flexion (rs = -0.115, p = 0.377), internal rotation (rs = 0.070, p = 0.548), flexion adduction internal rotation (U = 72.00, p = 0.270), Stinchfield (U = 290.50, p = 0.755), or subspine tests (U = 319.00, p = 0.519). External rotation was weakly correlated (rs = 0.253, p = 0.028) with AIIS subtype. Alpha angle was negatively correlated with hip flexion (r = -0.387, p = 0.002) and external rotation (r = -0.238, p = 0.043) and not correlated with internal rotation (r = -0.068, p = 0.568).

Conclusions: The findings in this study suggest the false profile radiograph is superior to an AP radiograph of the pelvis in evaluating AIIS morphology. Neither preoperative hip internal rotation nor impingement tests correlate with AIIS type as previously suggested questioning the utility of the AIIS classification system in identifying pathologic AIIS anatomy.

Level Of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.

Citing Articles

Endoscopic-assisted percutaneous fixation for displaced anterior inferior iliac spine avulsion fractures: a prospective cohort study.

Audisio A, Aprato A, Reinaudo V, Sinatra G, Lucchino L, Masse A J Orthop Traumatol. 2025; 26(1):16.

PMID: 40057584 PMC: 11890690. DOI: 10.1186/s10195-025-00831-4.


Comparison of Anterior Center-Edge Angle Measured From the Acetabular Sourcil Versus the Anterior Bone-Edge of the Acetabulum: A Descriptive Laboratory Study.

Cheng H, Ren N, Gu W, Zhang Z, Li Y, Sun W Orthop J Sports Med. 2024; 12(1):23259671231221295.

PMID: 38304054 PMC: 10832420. DOI: 10.1177/23259671231221295.


A comparison between ultrasound-guided AIIS injection and radiography in the diagnosis of subspine impingement in patients with FAI.

He Z, Liu Z, Bi G, Zhang X, Wang J, Jiang L BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):1082.

PMID: 36503498 PMC: 9743759. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-06045-7.


The narrow subspine space and relatively large labrum are radiographic features of subspine impingement: a case-control study.

Liu R, Zhao Y, Xu Y, Yuan H BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):997.

PMID: 36401217 PMC: 9675214. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05947-w.


Imaging Diagnosis, Prevalence, and Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Surgery for Anterior Inferior Iliac Spine Impingement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Kobayashi N, Kamono E, Yamamoto Y, Yukizawa Y, Honda H, Takagawa S Orthop J Sports Med. 2022; 10(11):23259671221131341.

PMID: 36389619 PMC: 9663622. DOI: 10.1177/23259671221131341.


References
1.
Rossi F, Dragoni S . Acute avulsion fractures of the pelvis in adolescent competitive athletes: prevalence, location and sports distribution of 203 cases collected. Skeletal Radiol. 2001; 30(3):127-31. DOI: 10.1007/s002560000319. View

2.
Ganz R, Leunig M, Leunig-Ganz K, Harris W . The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip: an integrated mechanical concept. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(2):264-72. PMC: 2505145. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-007-0060-z. View

3.
Cheatham S . Extra-articular hip impingement: a narrative review of the literature. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2016; 60(1):47-56. PMC: 4807686. View

4.
Gupta A, Redmond J, Stake C, Dunne K, Domb B . Does Primary Hip Arthroscopy Result in Improved Clinical Outcomes?: 2-Year Clinical Follow-up on a Mixed Group of 738 Consecutive Primary Hip Arthroscopies Performed at a High-Volume Referral Center. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 44(1):74-82. DOI: 10.1177/0363546514562563. View

5.
Hetsroni I, Larson C, Torre K, Zbeda R, Magennis E, Kelly B . Anterior inferior iliac spine deformity as an extra-articular source for hip impingement: a series of 10 patients treated with arthroscopic decompression. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(11):1644-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.05.882. View