Abstract
Introduction
In the evaluation of patients with pre-arthritic hip disorders, making the correct diagnosis and identifying the underlying bone pathology is of upmost importance to achieve optimal patient outcomes. 3-dimensional imaging adds information for proper preoperative planning. CT scans have become the gold standard for this, but with the associated risk of radiation exposure to this generally younger patient cohort.
Purpose
To determine if 3D-MR reconstructions of the hip can be used to accurately demonstrate femoral and acetabular morphology in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and development dysplasia of the hip (DDH) that is comparable to CT imaging.
Materials and Methods
We performed a retrospective review of 14 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of FAI or DDH that underwent both CT and MRI scans of the same hip with 3D reconstructions. 2 fellowship trained musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed all scans, and a fellowship trained hip preservation surgeon separately reviewed scans for relevant surgical parameters. All were blinded to the patients' clinical history.
The 3D reconstructions were evaluated by radiologists for the presence of a CAM lesion and acetabular retroversion, while the hip preservation surgeon also evaluated CAM extent using a clock face convention of a right hip, location of femoral head blood supply, and morphological anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) variant. The findings on the 3D CT reconstructions were considered the reference standard.
Results
Of 14 patients, there were 9 females and 5 males with a mean age 32 (range 15–42).
There was no difference in the ability of MRI to detect the presence of a CAM lesion (100% agreement between 3D-MR and 3D-CT, p=1), AIIS morphology (p=1, mode=type 1 variant), or acetabular retroversion (85.7%, p=0.5). 3D-MR had a sensitivity and specificity of 100 in detecting a CAM lesion relative to 3D-CT.
Four CT studies were inadequate to adequately evaluate for presence of a CAM. Five CT studies were inadequate to evaluate for location of the femoral head vessels, while MRI was able to determine location in those patients. In the 10 remaining patients for presence of CAM, and nine patients for femoral head vessel location, there was no statistically significant difference between 3D-MR and 3D-CT in determining the location of CAM lesion on a clock face (p=0.8, mean MRI = 12:54, mean CT: 12:51, SD = 66 mins MR, 81 mins CT) or in determining vessel location (p=0.4, MR mean 11:23, CT mean 11:36, SD 33 mins for both).
Conclusion
3D MRI reconstructions are as accurate as 3D CT reconstructions in evaluating osseous morphology of the hip, and may be superior to CT in determining other certain clinically relevant hip parameters. 3D-MR was equally useful in determining the presence and extent of a CAM lesion, acetabular retroversion, and AIIS morphologic variant, and more useful than 3D CT in determining location of the femoral head vessels. In evaluating FAI or hip dysplasia, a 3D-MR study is sufficient to evaluate both soft tissue and osseous anatomy, sparing the need for a 3D CT scan and its associated radiation exposure and cost.
