Mimics and Pitfalls of Imaging Assessment

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that predominantly involves the axial skeleton. Imaging findings of axSpA can be divided into active changes, which include bone marrow edema, synovitis, enthesitis, capsulitis, and intra-articular effusion, and structural changes, which include erosions, sclerosis, bone fatty infiltration, fat deposition in an erosion cavity, and bone bridging or ankylosis. The ability to distinguish between imaging lesions suggestive of axSpA and artifacts or lesions suggestive of other disorders is critical for the accurate diagnosis of axSpA. Diagnosis may be challenging, particularly in early-stage disease and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a key role in the detection of subtle or inflammatory changes. MRI also allows the detection of structural changes in the subchondral bone marrow that are not visible on conventional radiography and is of prognostic and monitoring value. However, bone structural changes are more accurately depicted using computed tomography. Conventional radiography, on the other hand, has limitations, but it is easily accessible and may provide insight on gross changes as well as rule out other pathological features of the axial skeleton. This review outlines the imaging evaluation of axSpA with a focus on imaging mimics and potential pitfalls when assessing the axial skeleton.publishersversionpublishe

Adding false-profile radiographs improves detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip, data from the CHECK cohort.

The aim of this study was to determine the additional value of the false-profile (FP) view radiograph in the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), as compared with an anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiograph only, and evaluate the correlation between the Wiberg-lateral center edge angle (W-LCEA) and Wiberg-anterior center edge angle (W-ACEA). We used baseline data from a nationwide prospective cohort study (Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee). DDH was quantified on AP pelvic and FP hip radiographs using semi-automatic measurements of the W-LCEA and W-ACEA. A threshold of <20° was used to determine DDH for both the W-LCEA and the W-ACEA. The proportion of DDH only present on the FP view determined the FP view additional value. The correlation between the W-LCEA and W-ACEA was determined. In total 720 participants (1391 hips) were included. DDH was present in 74 hips (5.3%), of which 32 were only present on the FP view radiograph (43.2%). The Pearson correlation coefficient between W-LCEA and W-ACEA of all included hips was 0.547 (95% confidence interval: 0.503–0.591) and 0.441 (95% confidence interval: 0.231–0.652) in hips with DDH. A mean difference of 9.4° (SD 8.09) was present between the W-LCEA and the W-ACEA in the hips with DDH. There is a strong additional value of the FP radiograph in the diagnosis of DDH. Over 4 out of 10 (43.2%) individuals’ DDH will be missed when only using the AP radiograph. In hips with DDH a moderate correlation between W-LCEA and W-ACEA was calculated indicating that joints with normal acetabular coverage on the AP view can still be undercovered on the FP view

The Lisbon Agreement on Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging-part 3: imaging techniques

OBJECTIVES Imaging diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) remains controversial due to a lack of high-level evidence, leading to significant variability in patient management. Optimizing protocols and technical details is essential in FAI imaging, although challenging in clinical practice. The purpose of this agreement is to establish expert-based statements on FAI imaging, using formal consensus techniques driven by relevant literature review. Recommendations on the selection and use of imaging techniques for FAI assessment, as well as guidance on relevant radiographic and MRI classifications, are provided. METHODS The Delphi method was used to assess agreement and derive consensus among 30 panel members (musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopedic surgeons). Forty-four questions were agreed on and classified into five major topics and recent relevant literature was circulated, in order to produce answering statements. The level of evidence was assessed for all statements and panel members scored their level of agreement with each statement during 4 Delphi rounds. Either "group consensus," "group agreement," or "no agreement" was achieved. RESULTS Forty-seven statements were generated and group consensus was reached for 45. Twenty-two statements pertaining to "Imaging techniques" were generated. Eight statements on "Radiographic assessment" and 12 statements on "MRI evaluation" gained consensus. No agreement was reached for the 2 "Ultrasound" related statements. CONCLUSION The first international consensus on FAI imaging was developed. Researchers and clinicians working with FAI and hip-related pain may use these recommendations to guide, develop, and implement comprehensive, evidence-based imaging protocols and classifications. KEY POINTS Radiographic evaluation is recommended for the initial assessment of FAI, while MRI with a dedicated protocol is the gold standard imaging technique for the comprehensive evaluation of this condition. • The MRI protocol for FAI evaluation should include unilateral small FOV with radial imaging, femoral torsion assessment, and a fluid sensitive sequence covering the whole pelvis. • The definite role of other imaging methods in FAI, such as ultrasound or CT, is still not well defined

Correction to: The Lisbon Agreement on Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging-part 1: overview

The original version of this article, published on 14 May 2020, unfortunately contained a mistake

The Lisbon Agreement on Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging-part 1: overview

OBJECTIVES Imaging assessment for the clinical management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome remains controversial because of a paucity of evidence-based guidance and notable variability in clinical practice, ultimately requiring expert consensus. The purpose of this agreement is to establish expert-based statements on FAI imaging, using formal techniques of consensus building. METHODS A validated Delphi method and peer-reviewed literature were used to formally derive consensus among 30 panel members (21 musculoskeletal radiologists and 9 orthopaedic surgeons) from 13 countries. Forty-four questions were agreed on, and recent relevant seminal literature was circulated and classified in five major topics ('General issues', 'Parameters and reporting', 'Radiographic assessment', 'MRI' and 'Ultrasound') in order to produce answering statements. The level of evidence was noted for all statements, and panel members were asked to score their level of agreement with each statement (0 to 10) during iterative rounds. Either 'consensus', 'agreement' or 'no agreement' was achieved. RESULTS Forty-seven statements were generated, and group consensus was reached for 45 (95.7%). Seventeen of these statements were selected as most important for dissemination in advance. There was no agreement for the two statements pertaining to 'Ultrasound'. CONCLUSION Radiographic evaluation is the cornerstone of hip evaluation. An anteroposterior pelvis radiograph and a Dunn 45° view are recommended for the initial assessment of FAI although MRI with a dedicated protocol is the gold standard imaging technique in this setting. The resulting consensus can serve as a tool to reduce variability in clinical practices and guide further research for the clinical management of FAI. KEY POINTS • FAI imaging literature is extensive although often of low level of evidence. • Radiographic evaluation with a reproducible technique is the cornerstone of hip imaging assessment. • MRI with a dedicated protocol is the gold standard imaging technique for FAI assessment

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three-Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly utilized as a radiation-free alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis and treatment planning of musculoskeletal pathologies. MR imaging of hard tissues such as cortical bone remains challenging due to their low proton density and short transverse relaxation times, rendering bone tissues as nonspecific low signal structures on MR images obtained from most sequences. Developments in MR image acquisition and post-processing have opened the path for enhanced MR-based bone visualization aiming to provide a CT-like contrast and, as such, ease clinical interpretation. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of studies comparing MR and CT imaging for diagnostic and treatment planning purposes in orthopedic care, with a special focus on selective bone visualization, bone segmentation, and three-dimensional (3D) modeling. This review discusses conventional gradient-echo derived techniques as well as dedicated short echo time acquisition techniques and post-processing techniques, including the generation of synthetic CT, in the context of 3D and specific bone visualization. Based on the reviewed literature, it may be concluded that the recent developments in MRI-based bone visualization are promising. MRI alone provides valuable information on both bone and soft tissues for a broad range of applications including diagnostics, 3D modeling, and treatment planning in multiple anatomical regions, including the skull, spine, shoulder, pelvis, and long bones. Level of Evidence: 3. Technical Efficacy: Stage 3

The Lisbon Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement imaging-part 2: general issues, parameters, and reporting

OBJECTIVES Imaging assessment for the clinical management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is controversial because of a paucity of evidence-based guidance and notable variability among practitioners. Hence, expert consensus is needed because standardised imaging assessment is critical for clinical practice and research. We aimed to establish expert-based statements on FAI imaging by using formal methods of consensus building. METHODS The Delphi method was used to formally derive consensus among 30 panel members from 13 countries. Forty-four questions were agreed upon, and relevant seminal literature was circulated and classified in major topics to produce answering statements. The level of evidence was noted for all statements, and panel members were asked to score their level of agreement (0-10). This is the second part of a three-part consensus series and focuses on 'General issues' and 'Parameters and reporting'. RESULTS Forty-seven statements were generated and group consensus was reached for 45. Twenty-five statements pertaining to 'General issues' (9 addressing diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and postoperative imaging) and 'Parameters and reporting' (16 addressing femoral/acetabular parameters) were produced. CONCLUSIONS The available evidence was reviewed critically, recommended criteria for diagnostic imaging highlighted, and the roles/values of different imaging parameters assessed. Radiographic evaluation (AP pelvis and a Dunn 45° view) is the cornerstone of hip-imaging assessment and the minimum imaging study that should be performed when evaluating adult patients for FAI. In most cases, cross-sectional imaging is warranted because MRI is the 'gold standard' imaging modality for the comprehensive evaluation, differential diagnosis assessment, and FAI surgical planning. KEY POINTS Diagnostic imaging for FAI is not standardised due to scarce evidence-based guidance on which imaging modalities and diagnostic criteria/parameters should be used. • Radiographic evaluation is the cornerstone of hip assessment and the minimum study that should be performed when assessing suspected FAI. Cross-sectional imaging is justified in most cases because MRI is the 'gold standard' modality for comprehensive FAI evaluation. • For acetabular morphology, coverage (Wiberg's angle and acetabular index) and version (crossover, posterior wall, and ischial spine signs) should be assessed routinely. On the femoral side, the head-neck junction morphology (α° and offset), neck morphology (NSA), and torsion should be assessed

Imaging methodology for hip preservation: techniques, parameters, and thresholds

The concept of hip impingement and hip-preserving surgery has been appreciated in more detail since 2001 when a new surgical approach was reported and a hypothesis linking femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with osteoarthritis was presented. Paralleling the introduction of hip arthroscopy, these events led to an increasing interest in the hip, and the number of publications has risen rapidly over the past 15 years, despite limited evidence levels and inconsistent methodology. Accordingly, etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and the effects of treatment for FAI are still elusive due to a number of uncertainties and a lack of clear diagnostic criteria.Future research must focus on developing high-quality scientific studies, so thorough and reproducible methodology is needed. This review provides researchers, radiologists, and clinicians with a comprehensive approach to hip imaging with a focus on strategies to help guide the clinical diagnosis. Using evidence from current literature and knowledge from experienced clinicians, some of the imaging methodology challenges are deciphered

Can We Discriminate Symptomatic Hip Patients From Asymptomatic Volunteers Based on Anatomic Predictors? A 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Study on Cam, Pincer, and Spinopelvic Parameters

BACKGROUND: Given the high prevalence of patients with hip deformities and no ongoing hip dysfunction, understanding the anatomic factors predicting the symptomatic state is critical. One such variable is how the spinopelvic parameters (SPPs) may interplay with hip anatomic factors. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: SPPs and femoral- and acetabular-specific parameters may predict which patients will become symptomatic. The purpose was to determine which anatomic characteristics with specific cutoffs were associated with hip symptom development and how these parameters relate to each other. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: 548 participants were designated either symptomatic patients (n = 176, scheduled for surgery with hip pain and/or functional limitation) or asymptomatic volunteers (n = 372, no pain) and underwent 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Multiple femoral (α angle, Ω angle, neck angle, torsion), acetabular (version, coverage), and spinopelvic (pelvic tilt, sacral slope [SS], pelvic incidence) parameters were measured semiautomatically. Normative values, optimal differentiating thresholds, and a logistic regression analysis were computed. RESULTS: Symptomatic patients had larger cam deformities (defined by increased Ω angle and α angle), smaller acetabular coverage, and larger pelvic incidence and SS angles compared with the asymptomatic volunteers. Discriminant receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed that radial 2-o'clock α angle (threshold 58°-60°, sensitivity 75%-60%, specificity 80%-84%; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.831), Ω angle (threshold 43°, sensitivity 72%, specificity 70%; AUC = 0.830), acetabular inclination (threshold 6°, sensitivity 65%, specificity 70%; AUC = 0.709), and SS (threshold 44°, sensitivity 72%, specificity 75%; AUC = 0.801) ( P < .005) were the best parameters to classify participants. When parameters were entered into a logistic regression, significant positive predictors for the symptomatic patients were achieved for SS, acetabular inclination, Ω angle, and α angle at 2-o'clock, correctly classifying 85% of cases (model sensitivity 72%, specificity 91%; AUC = 0.919). CONCLUSION: Complex dynamic interplay exists between the hip and SPPs. A cam deformity, acetabular undercoverage, and increased SPP angles are predictive of a hip symptomatic state. SPPs were significant to discriminate between participants and were important in combination with other hip deformities. Symptomatic patients can be effectively differentiated from asymptomatic volunteers based on predictive anatomic factors

Hip shape is symmetric, non-dependent on limb dominance and gender-specific : implications for femoroacetabular impingement : a 3D CT analysis in asymptomatic subjects

To determine the reference intervals (RefInt) of the quantitative morphometric parameters of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in asymptomatic hips with computed tomography (CT) and determine their dependence on age, side, limb dominance and sex. We prospectively included 590 patients and evaluated 1111 hips with semi-automated CT analysis. We calculated overall, side- and sex-specific parameters for imaging signs of cam [omega and alpha angle (alpha A degrees)] and pincer-type morphology [acetabular version (ACvers), lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) and cranio-caudal coverage]. Hip shape was symmetrical and did not depend on limb dominance. The 95% RefInt limits were sex-different for all cam-type parameters and extended beyond current abnormal thresholds. Specifically, the upper limits of RefInt for alpha A degrees at 12:00, 1:30 and 3:00 o'clock positions were 56A degrees, 70A degrees and 58A degrees, respectively, and 45A degrees for LCEA. Acetabular morphology varied between age groups, with a trend toward an LCEA/ACvers increase over time. Our morphometric measurements can be used to estimate normal hip morphology in asymptomatic individuals. Notably they extended beyond current thresholds used for FAI imaging diagnosis, which was most pronounced for cam-type parameters. We suggest the need to reassess alpha A degrees RefInt and consider a 60A degrees threshold for the 12:00/3:00 positions and 65-70A degrees for other antero-superior positions. - Hip shape is symmetrical regardless of limb dominance. - Pincer/cam morphology is frequent in asymptomatic subjects (20 and 71%, respectively). - LCEA and acetabular version increases with age (5-7A degrees between opposite age groups). - Femoral morphology is stable after physeal closure (in the absence of pathology). - Alpha and omega angle thresholds should be set according to sex