Three-dimensional Analysis of Age and Sex Differences in Femoral Head Asphericity in Asymptomatic Hips in the United States

Overview

Journal World J Orthop

Publisher Baishideng Publishing Group

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Aug 21

PMID 39165879

Authors

Mahad M Hassan

Aliya G Feroe

Brenton W Douglass

Andrew E Jimenez

Benjamin Kuhns

Charles F Mitchell

Robert L Parisien

Daniel A Maranho

Eduardo N Novais

Young-Jo Kim

Ata M Kiapour

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The sphericity of the femoral head is a metric used to evaluate hip pathologies and is associated with the development of osteoarthritis and femoral-acetabular impingement.

Aim: To analyze the three-dimensional asphericity of the femoral head of asymptomatic pediatric hips. We hypothesized that femoral head asphericity will vary significantly between male and female pediatric hips and increase with age in both sexes.

Methods: Computed tomography scans were obtained on 158 children and adolescents from a single institution in the United States (8-18 years; 50% male) without hip pain. Proximal femoral measurements including the femoral head diameter, femoral head volume, residual volume, asphericity index, and local diameter difference were used to evaluate femoral head sphericity.

Results: In both sexes, the residual volume increased by age ( < 0.05). Despite significantly smaller femoral head size in older ages (> 13 years) in females, there were no sex-differences in residual volume and aspherity index. There were no age-related changes in mean diameter difference in both sexes ( = 0.07) with no significant sex-differences across different age groups ( = 0.06). In contrast, there were significant increases in local aspherity (maximum diameter difference) across whole surface of the femoral head and all quadrants except the inferior regions in males ( = 0.03). There were no sex-differences in maximum diameter difference at any regions and age group ( > 0.05). Increased alpha angle was only correlated to increased mean diameter difference across overall surface of the femoral head ( = 0.024).

Conclusion: There is a substantial localized asphericity in asymptomatic hips which increases with age in. While 2D measured alpha angle can capture overall asphericity of the femoral head, it may not be sensitive enough to represent regional asphericity patterns.

References

Tannast M, Kubiak-Langer M, Langlotz F, Puls M, Murphy S, Siebenrock K . Noninvasive three-dimensional assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res. 2006; 25(1):122-31. DOI: 10.1002/jor.20309. View

Thomas G, Palmer A, Batra R, Kiran A, Hart D, Spector T . Subclinical deformities of the hip are significant predictors of radiographic osteoarthritis and joint replacement in women. A 20 year longitudinal cohort study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014; 22(10):1504-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.06.038. View

Bixby S, Kienle K, Nasreddine A, Zurakowski D, Kim Y, Yen Y . Reference values for proximal femoral anatomy in adolescents based on sex, physis, and imaging plane. Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41(9):2074-82. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513495346. View

Clohisy J, Carlisle J, Beaule P, Kim Y, Trousdale R, Sierra R . A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90 Suppl 4:47-66. PMC: 2682767. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00756. View

Horenstein R, Meslier Q, Spada J, Halverstadt A, Lewis C, Gimpel M . Measuring 3D growth plate shape: Methodology and application to cam morphology. J Orthop Res. 2020; 39(11):2398-2408. PMC: 8222423. DOI: 10.1002/jor.24972. View

Monazzam S, Bomar J, Agashe M, Hosalkar H . Does femoral rotation influence anteroposterior alpha angle, lateral center-edge angle, and medial proximal femoral angle? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 471(5):1639-45. PMC: 3613525. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2708-6. View

Harris M, Kapron A, Peters C, Anderson A . Correlations between the alpha angle and femoral head asphericity: Implications and recommendations for the diagnosis of cam femoroacetabular impingement. Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83(5):788-96. PMC: 4002001. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.005. View

Meyer D, Beck M, Ellis T, Ganz R, Leunig M . Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 445:181-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000201168.72388.24. View

Miyasaka D, Sakai Y, Ibuchi S, Suzuki H, Imai N, Endo N . Sex- and age-specific differences in femoral head coverage and acetabular morphology among healthy subjects-derivation of normal ranges and thresholds for abnormality. Skeletal Radiol. 2017; 46(4):523-531. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-017-2583-z. View

10.

Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Notzli H, Siebenrock K . Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; (417):112-20. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000096804.78689.c2. View

11.

Wylie J, Kim Y . The Natural History of Femoroacetabular Impingement. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019; 39(Issue 6, Supplement 1 Suppl 1):S28-S32. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001385. View

12.

Albers C, Steppacher S, Haefeli P, Werlen S, Hanke M, Siebenrock K . Twelve percent of hips with a primary cam deformity exhibit a slip-like morphology resembling sequelae of slipped capital femoral epiphysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 473(4):1212-23. PMC: 4353527. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-4068-x. View

13.

Audenaert E, Baelde N, Huysse W, Vigneron L, Pattyn C . Development of a three-dimensional detection method of cam deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. Skeletal Radiol. 2010; 40(7):921-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-010-1021-2. View

14.

Harris M, Reese S, Peters C, Weiss J, Anderson A . Three-dimensional quantification of femoral head shape in controls and patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013; 41(6):1162-71. PMC: 3640621. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-013-0762-1. View

15.

Siebenrock K, Wahab K, Werlen S, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R . Abnormal extension of the femoral head epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; (418):54-60. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200401000-00010. View

16.

Gosvig K, Jacobsen S, Palm H, Sonne-Holm S, Magnusson E . A new radiological index for assessing asphericity of the femoral head in cam impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(10):1309-16. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B10.19405. View

17.

Konan S, Rayan F, Haddad F . Is the frog lateral plain radiograph a reliable predictor of the alpha angle in femoroacetabular impingement?. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(1):47-50. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B1.22359. View

18.

Pfirrmann C, Mengiardi B, Dora C, Kalberer F, Zanetti M, Hodler J . Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology. 2006; 240(3):778-85. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2403050767. View

19.

Steppacher S, Tannast M, Werlen S, Siebenrock K . Femoral morphology differs between deficient and excessive acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(4):782-90. PMC: 2504673. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0141-7. View

20.

Sankar W, Neubuerger C, Moseley C . Femoral head sphericity in untreated developmental dislocation of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010; 30(6):558-61. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181e4f53e. View