Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 139, Issue 5, pp 675–683 | Cite as

The Extension–Thickness–Damage (ETD) score: a pre-operative hip MR arthrography-based classification to predict type of labrum surgery

  • Alberto Aliprandi
  • Marco Brioschi
  • Sandro Magnani
  • Silvana Sdao
  • Domenico AlbanoEmail author
  • Luca Maria Sconfienza
  • Filippo Randelli
Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine



Hip magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) is the pre-operative imaging modality of choice in patients with labral damage, with several classifications of labral tears having been reported based on MRA findings. Nevertheless, none of the available classification systems allows the surgeon to predict before surgery how a labral tear could be treated. Our purpose was to develop a new MRA-based scoring system of labral tears to predict before surgery the treatment option more suitable for labral tears.

Materials and methods

Forty-seven patients (29 males and 18 females; mean age: 35.9 ± 12.4) performed hip MRA for suspicious of femoroacetabular impingement and were afterwards subjected to arthroscopic treatment. Two musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed all pre-operative examinations and provided the Extension–Thickness–Damage score for each patient, based on Extension of tear, Thickness of labrum, and type of Damage. Chondral lesions grading was based on the arthroscopic findings according to Konan classification. For statistical purposes, patients were divided into two groups, depending on the type of treatment: labral repair or debridement. Mann–Whitney U, Chi-square, receiver operator curves, and Cohen kappa statistics were used.


35/47 underwent repair, while 12/47 were debrided. In both groups, the median chondral damage was grade III, with no significant differences (p = 0.439). The median Extension–Thickness–Damage score in the repair group (6) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than that in the debridement group (8). The highest diagnostic performance (area under the curve) of Extension–Thickness–Damage was 0.819. The inter-observer agreement was substantial in the evaluation of Extension (k = 0.626) and Thickness (k = 0.771), and almost perfect for Damage (k = 0.827). Higher scores of Extension and Thickness were more frequently associated with debridement (p < 0.001; p = 0.0016, respectively), with no significant differences on the basis of Damage parameter (p = 0.284).


The MRA-based Extension–Thickness–Damage score could represent a helpful pre-operative tool, expressing the extent of the damage and its reparability before arthroscopy.


Magnetic resonance arthrography Hip Labrum Tear Arthroscopy 



This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Reiman MP, Goode AP, Cook CE, Thorborg K (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the diagnosis of hip femoroacetabular impingement/labral tear: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 49:811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silvestri E, Barile A, Albano D et al (2018) Interventional therapeutic procedures in the musculoskeletal system: an Italian Survey by the Italian College of Musculoskeletal Radiology. Radiol Med 123:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCarthy JC, Noble PC, Schuck MR, Wright J, Lee J (2001) The Otto E. Aufranc Award: the role of labral lesions to development of early degenerative hip disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Philippon MJ, Martin RR, Kelly BT (2005) A classification system for labral tears of the hip. Arthroscopy 21:e36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schüttler KF, Schramm R, El-Zayat BF, Schofer MD, Efe T, Heyse TJ (2018) The effect of surgeon’s learning curve: complications and outcome after hip arthroscopy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:1415–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olach M, Gerhard P, Giesinger K, Lampert C, Erhardt JB (2018) Clinical and radiological outcome at mean follow-up of 11 years after hip arthroscopy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Philippon MJ, Faucet SC, Briggs KK (2013) Arthroscopic hip labral repair. Arthrosc Tech 2:e73–e76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larson CM, Giveans MR (2009) Arthroscopic debridement versus refixation of the acetabular labrum associated with femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy 25:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larson CM, Giveans MR, Stone RM (2012) Arthroscopic debridement versus refixation of the acetabular labrum associated with femoroacetabular impingement: mean 3.5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 40:1015–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krych AJ, Thompson M, Knutson Z, Scoon J, Coleman SH (2013) Arthroscopic labral repair versus selective labral debridement in female patients with femoroacetabular impingement: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy 29:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Domb BG, Hartigan DE, Perets I (2017) Decision making for labral treatment in the hip: repair versus débridement versus reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25:e53–e62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aliprandi A, Di Pietto F, Minafra P, Zappia M, Pozza S, Sconfienza LM (2014) Femoro-acetabular impingement: what the general radiologist should know. Radiol Med 119:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Genovese E, Spiga S, Vinci V et al (2013) Femoroacetabular impingement: role of imaging. Musculoskelet Surg 97(Suppl 2):S117–S126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sconfienza LM, Albano D, Messina C, Silvestri E, Tagliafico AS (2018) How, when, why in magnetic resonance arthrography: an International Survey by the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR). Eur Radiol 28:2356–2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li AE, Jawetz ST, Greditzer HG, Burge AJ, Nawabi DH, Potter HG (2016) MRI for the preoperative evaluation of femoroacetabular impingement. Insights Imaging 7:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naraghi A, White LM (2015) MRI of labral and chondral lesions of the hip. AJR 205:479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Czerny C, Hofmann S, Neuhold A et al (1996) Lesions of the acetabular labrum: accuracy of MR imaging and MR arthrography in detection and staging. Radiology 200:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lage LA, Patel JV, Villar RN (1996) The acetabular labral tear: an arthroscopic classification. Arthroscopy 12:269–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R (2005) Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1012–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neumann G, Mendicuti AD, Zou KH et al (2007) Prevalence of labral tears and cartilage loss in patients with mechanical symptoms of the hip: evaluation using MR arthrography. Osteoarthritis Cartil 15:909–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blankenbaker DG, De Smet AA, Keene JS, Fine JP (2007) Classification and localization of acetabular labral tears. Skelet Radiol 36:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith TO, Hilton G, Toms AP, Donell ST, Hing CB (2011) The diagnostic accuracy of acetabular labral tears using magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 21:863–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Messina C, Banfi G, Aliprandi A et al (2016) Ultrasound guidance to perform intra-articular injection of gadolinium-based contrast material for magnetic resonance arthrography as an alternative to fluoroscopy: the time is now. Eur Radiol 26:1221–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mohana-Borges AVR, Chung C, Resnick D (2003) Superior labral anteroposterior tear: classification and diagnosis on MRI and MR arthrography. AJR 181:1449–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Konan S, Rayan F, Meermans G, Witt J, Haddad FS (2011) Validation of the classification system for acetabular chondral lesions identified at arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:332–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crawford MJ, Dy CJ, Alexander JW et al (2007) The 2007 Frank Stinchfield Award. The biomechanics of the hip labrum and the stability of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:16–22Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ, Campbell KJ et al (2014) The hip fluid seal—Part II: The effect of an acetabular labral tear, repair, resection, and reconstruction on hip stability to distraction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:730–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Philippon MJ, Nepple JJ, Campbell KJ et al (2014) The hip fluid seal—Part I: the effect of an acetabular labral tear, repair, resection, and reconstruction on hip fluid pressurization. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:722–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ferguson SJ, Bryant JT, Ganz R et al (2003) An in vitro investigation of the acetabular labral seal in hip joint mechanics. J Biomech 36:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ferguson SJ, Bryant JT, Ganz R et al (2000) The influence of the acetabular labrum on hip joint cartilage consolidation: a poroelastic finite element model. J Biomech 33:953–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harris JD (2016) Hip labral repair: options and outcomes. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Freedman BA, Potter BK, Dinauer PA, Giuliani JR, Kuklo TR, Murphy KP (2006) Prognostic value of magnetic resonance arthrography for Czerny stage II and III acetabular labral tears. Arthroscopy 22:742–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Albano D, Martinelli N, Bianchi A, Giacalone A, Sconfienza LM (2017) Evaluation of reproducibility of the MOCART score in patients with osteochondral lesions of the talus repaired using the autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis technique. Radiol Med 122:909–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Snyder SJ (2003) Arthroscopic classification of rotator cuff lesions and surgical decision making. In: Shoulder arthroscopy, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 201–207Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hodler J, Yu JS, Goodwin D, Haghighi P, Trudell D, Resnick D (1995) MR arthrography of the hip: improved imaging of the acetabular labrum with histologic correlation in cadavers. AJR 165:887–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ayeni OR, Adamich J, Farrokhyar F et al (2014) Surgical management of labral tears during femoroacetabular impingement surgery: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:756–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiology UnitIstituti Clinici ZucchiMonzaItaly
  2. 2.Postgraduate School in Orthopedic SurgeryUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Postgraduate School in RadiodiagnosticsUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyOspedale Alessandro ManzoniLeccoItaly
  5. 5.Unit of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico GaleazziMilanItaly
  6. 6.Department of Biomedical Sciences for HealthUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  7. 7.Hip Department, Orthopedics and TraumaIRCCS Policlinico San DonatoSan Donato MilaneseItaly

Personalised recommendations