Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Computed Tomography Imaging Is Not Reliable in Assessing Acetabular Rim Osteophytes or Acetabular Rim Pathology in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement

Purpose: To determine the reliability of 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of computed tomography (CT) imaging in evaluating acetabular rim morphology or acetabular rim osteophyte (ARO) existence and to group patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) by ARO extent on coronal sections of CT and further compare clinical differences among groups. Methods: Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAI by the same surgeon between August 2016 and December 2018 with minimum 2-year follow-up were enrolled. The ARO was evaluated both on the acetabular gross anatomy (AGA) and coronal sections of CT, for its position, width (unit: mm), area (unit: mm2), and CT value (unit: HU). Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the extent of ARO on coronal CT: group A (ARO anterior to 12 o’clock), group P (ARO posterior to 12 o’clock), group AP (ARO across 12 o’clock), and group N (no ARO). Inter- and intraobserver correlation was analyzed. Demographic data, FAI deformity indicators on imaging, quantitative measurements of ARO, and pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes were compared among groups. Results: There were 229 patients (229 hips) enrolled in total, 122 male (53.3%) and 107 female (46.7%), with a mean age of 37.2 ± 10.2 years. The correlation between 2 observers for grouping ARO using AGA was positive but poor (Kendall Tau-b coefficient = 0.157, P = .008). Moderate correlation was found between grouping based on AGA and coronal CT by the same observer (Kendall Tau-b coefficient = 0.482, P = .000). The patients were divided into 4 groups: 84 patients (36.7%) in group N, 2 patients (0.9%) in group A, 69 patients (30.1%) in group P, and 74 patients (32.3%) in group AP. Group N was younger in age (35.4 ± 10.7 years) than group P (39.6 ± 10.2 years) (P = 0.012) and had a larger proportion of women (57.1%) than group AP (36.5%) (χ2 = 6.869, P = .032). There was a greater proportion of positive posterior wall sign in group P (52.2%) than 48.6% for group AP and 33.3% for group N (χ2 = 6.397, P = .041). Group N had 61 (72.6%) Tönnis grade 0 hips compared with 37 (50%) in group AP (P = .014). No statistical significance was found among groups in pre- and postoperative α angle, lateral center-edge angle, and patient-reported outcomes. The widths of ARO in group AP for the 3 marked points from anterior to posterior were 3.88 ± 1.86, 4.84 ± 2.72, and 6.66 ± 3.18, separately (P＜.001); 15.73 ± 21.46, 19.22 ± 18.86, and 29.96 ± 17.05 for area (P＜.01); and 652.67 ± 214.12, 677.10 ± 274.81, and 728.84 ± 232.39 for CT value (P＜.05). For the ARO posterior to 12 o’clock, the group AP showed a larger width (6.66 ± 3.18), area (29.96 ± 17.05), and CT value (728.84 ± 232.39) than group P of (4.70 ± 2.25), (20.15 ± 12.91), and (641.84 ± 183.33) (P＜.001). Conclusions: The evaluation of ARO on AGA is poor consistent with definite double-rim sign on coronal CT. There is a tendency of size-enlarging and density-increasing for ARO from anterior to posterior along the acetabular rim. Younger age, female gender, lower Tönnis grade, and negative posterior wall sign showed lower rate of ARO development. Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic case series