Aims. The frequency of severe femoral retroversion is unclear in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). This study aimed to investigate mean femoral version (FV), the frequency of absolute femoral retroversion, and the combination of decreased FV and acetabular retroversion (AR) in symptomatic patients with FAI subtypes. Methods. A retrospective institutional review board-approved observational study was performed with 333 symptomatic patients (384 hips) with hip pain due to FAI evaluated for hip preservation surgery. Overall, 142 patients (165 hips) had cam-type FAI, while 118 patients (137 hips) had mixed-type FAI. The allocation to each subgroup was based on reference values calculated on anteroposterior radiographs. CT/MRI-based measurement of FV (Murphy method) and AV were retrospectively compared among five FAI subgroups. Frequency of decreased FV < 10°, severely decreased FV < 5°, and absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°) was analyzed. Results. A significantly (p < 0.001) lower mean FV was found in patients with cam-type FAI (15° (SD 10°)), and in patients with mixed-type FAI (17° (SD 11°)) compared to severe over-coverage (20° (SD 12°). Frequency of decreased FV < 10° was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in patients with cam-type FAI (28%, 46 hips) and in patients with over-coverage (29%, 11 hips) compared to severe over-coverage (12%, 5 hips). Absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°) was found in 13% (5 hips) of patients with over-coverage, 6% (10 hips) of patients with cam-type FAI, and 5% (7 hips) of patients with mixed-type FAI. The frequency of decreased FV< 10° combined with acetabular retroversion (AV < 10°) was 6% (8 hips) in patients with mixed-type FAI and 5% (20 hips) in all FAI patients. Of patients with over-coverage, 11% (4 hips) had decreased FV < 10° combined with acetabular retroversion (AV < 10°). Conclusion. Patients with cam-type FAI had a considerable proportion (28%) of decreased FV < 10° and 6% had absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°), even more for patients with pincer-type FAI due to over-coverage (29% and 13%). This could be important for patients evaluated for open hip preservation surgery or hip arthroscopy, and each patient requires careful personalized evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):557–565

Aims. To evaluate how abnormal proximal femoral anatomy affects different femoral version measurements in young patients with hip pain. Methods. First, femoral version was measured in 50 hips of symptomatic consecutively selected patients with hip pain (mean age 20 years (SD 6), 60% (n = 25) females) on preoperative CT scans using different measurement methods: Lee et al, Reikerås et al, Tomczak et al, and Murphy et al. Neck-shaft angle (NSA) and α angle were measured on coronal and radial CT images. Second, CT scans from three patients with femoral retroversion, normal femoral version, and anteversion were used to create 3D femur models, which were manipulated to generate models with different NSAs and different cam lesions, resulting in eight models per patient. Femoral version measurements were repeated on manipulated femora. Results. Comparing the different measurement methods for femoral version resulted in a maximum mean difference of 18° (95% CI 16 to 20) between the most proximal (Lee et al) and most distal (Murphy et al) methods. Higher differences in proximal and distal femoral version measurement techniques were seen in femora with greater femoral version (r > 0.46; p < 0.001) and greater NSA (r > 0.37; p = 0.008) between all measurement methods. In the parametric 3D manipulation analysis, differences in femoral version increased 11° and 9° in patients with high and normal femoral version, respectively, with increasing NSA (110° to 150°). Conclusion. Measurement of femoral version angles differ depending on the method used to almost 20°, which is in the range of the aimed surgical correction in derotational femoral osteotomy and thus can be considered clinically relevant. Differences between proximal and distal measurement methods further increase by increasing femoral version and NSA. Measurement methods that take the entire proximal femur into account by using distal landmarks may produce more sensitive measurements of these differences. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):759–766

Aims

Slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE) has well documented biochemical and mechanical risk factors. Femoral and acetabular morphologies seem to be equally important. Acetabular retroversion has a low prevalence in asymptomatic adults. Hips with dysplasia, osteoarthritis, and Perthes’ disease, however, have higher rates, ranging from 18% to 48%. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence of acetabular retroversion in patients presenting with SUFE using both validated radiological signs and tomographical measurements.