Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects

  • Musculoskeletal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Our objectives were to use 3D computed tomography (CT) to define head–neck morphologic gender-specific and normative parameters in asymptomatic individuals and use the omega angle (Ω°) to provide quantification data on the location and radial extension of a cam deformity.

Methods

We prospectively included 350 individuals and evaluated 188 asymptomatic hips that underwent semiautomated CT analysis. Different thresholds of alpha angle (α°) were considered in order to analyze cam morphology and determine Ω°. We calculated overall and gender-specific parameters for imaging signs of cam morphology (Ω° and circumferential α°).

Results

The 95 % reference interval limits were beyond abnormal thresholds found in the literature for cam morphology. Specifically, α° at 3/1 o´clock were 46.9°/60.8° overall, 51.8°/65.4° for men and 45.7°/55.3° for women. Cam prevalence, magnitude, location, and epicenter were significantly gender different. Increasing α° correlated with higher Ω°, meaning that higher angles correspond to larger cam deformities.

Conclusion

Hip morphometry measurements in this cohort of asymptomatic individuals extended beyond current thresholds used for the clinical diagnosis of cam deformity, and α° was found to vary both by gender and measurement location. These results suggest that α° measurement is insufficient for the diagnosis of cam deformity. Enhanced morphometric evaluation, including 3D imaging and Ω°, may enable a more accurate diagnosis.

Key Points

• 95% reference interval limits of cam morphotype were beyond currently defined thresholds.

• Current morphometric definitions for cam-type morphotype should be applied with care.

• Cam prevalence, magnitude, location, and epicenter are significantly gender different.

• Cam and alpha angle thresholds should be defined according to sex/location.

• Quantitative 3D morphometric assessment allows thorough and reproducible FAI diagnosis and monitoring.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FAI:

Femoroacetabular impingement

FHN:

Femoral head/neck

OA:

Osteoarthritis

CT:

Computed tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

CR:

conventional X-ray

Ω°:

Omega angle

α°:

Alpha angle

References

  1. Tibor LM, Leunig M (2012) The pathoanatomy and arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint Res 1:245–257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Agricola R, Heijboer MP, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA et al (2013) Cam impingement causes osteoarthritis of the hip: a nationwide prospective cohort study (CHECK). Ann Rheum Dis 72:918–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Glyn-Jones S, Palmer AJR, Agricola R, et al (2015) Osteoarthritis. Lancet 1–12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60802-3

  4. Tannast M, Goricki D, Beck M et al (2008) Hip damage occurs at the zone of femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:273–280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Frank JM, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, et al (2015) Prevalence of Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging Findings in Asymptomatic Volunteers: A Systematic Review. YJARS 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.042

  6. Mascarenhas VV, Rego P, Dantas P et al (2016) Imaging prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in symptomatic patients, athletes, and asymptomatic individuals: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 85:73–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE (2007) Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1540–1552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clohisy JC (2008) A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg(Am) 90:47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R et al (2008) Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:666–675

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaulé PE (2010) Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:464–469

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pfirrmann CWA, Mengiardi B, Dora C et al (2006) Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology 240:778–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Beaulé PE, Zaragoza EJ, Motamedi K et al (2005) Three-dimensional computed tomography of the hip in the assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res 23:1286–1292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Domayer SE, Ziebarth K, Chan J et al (2011) Femoroacetabular cam-type impingement: diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of radiographic views compared to radial MRI. Eur J Radiol 80:805–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dudda M, Albers C, Mamisch TC et al (2008) Do normal radiographs exclude asphericity of the femoral head-neck junction? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:651–659

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Rakhra KS, Sheikh AM, Allen D, Beaulé PE (2008) Comparison of MRI alpha angle measurement planes in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:660–665

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tannast M, Kubiak-Langer M, Langlotz F et al (2006) Noninvasive three-dimensional assessment of femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res 25:122–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH et al (2002) The contour of the femoral – junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg- Br Vol 84:556–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson AE, Stiller JL, Shi XA et al (2015) Measures of hip morphology are related to development of worsening radiographic hip osteoarthritis over 6 to 13 year follow-up: the Johnston county osteoarthritis project. Osteoarthritis Cartilage / OARS, Osteoarthritis Res Soc. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2015.10.007

    Google Scholar 

  19. Milone MT, Bedi A, Poultsides L et al (2013) Novel CT-based three-dimensional software improves the characterization of Cam morphology. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2484–2491

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lohan DG, Seeger LL, Motamedi K, et al (2009) Cam-type femoral-acetabular impingement: is the alpha angle the best MR arthrography has to offer? Skeletal Radiol

  21. Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CWA (2012) How useful is the alpha angle for discriminating between symptomatic patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and asymptomatic volunteers? Radiology 264:514–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nouh MR, Schweitzer ME, Rybak L, Cohen J (2008) Femoroacetabular impingement: Can the alpha angle Be estimated? Am J Roentgenol 190:1260–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gosvig KK, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S et al (2010) Prevalence of malformations of the hip joint and their relationship to sex, groin pain, and risk of osteoarthritis: a population-based survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1162–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fraitzl CR, Kappe T, Pennekamp F et al (2012) Femoral – offset measurements in 339 subjects: distribution and implications for femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:1212–1217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pollard TCB, Villar RN, Norton MR et al (2010) Femoroacetabular impingement and classification of the cam deformity: the reference interval in normal hips. Acta Orthop 81:134–141

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ross JR, Larson CM, Adeoyo O et al (2014) Residual deformity is the most common reason for revision Hip arthroscopy: a three-dimensional CT study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1388–1395

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rego PRA, Mascarenhas V, Oliveira FS, et al (2015) Morphologic and angular planning for cam resectionin femoro-acetabular impingement: value of the omega angle. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 1–7. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-3053-7

  28. Cvetanovich GL, Harris JD, Erickson BJ et al (2015) Revision Hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of diagnoses, operative findings, and outcomes. Arthroscopy 31:1382–1390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, et al (2003) The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res 75–83. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000043047.84315.4b

  30. Lepage-Saucier M, Thiéry C, Larbi A et al (2014) Femoroacetabular impingement: normal values of the quantitative morphometric parameters in asymptomatic hips. Eur Radiol 24:1707–1714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Röling MA, Visser MI, Oei EHG et al (2015) A quantitative non-invasive assessment of femoroacetabular impingement with CT-based dynamic simulation--cadaveric validation study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:50

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Klenke FM, Hoffmann DB, Cross BJ, Siebenrock KA (2014) Validation of a standardized mapping system of the hip joint for radial MRA sequencing. Skelet Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00256-014-2026-z

    Google Scholar 

  33. Philippon MJ, Stubbs AJ, Schenker ML et al (2007) Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: osteoplasty technique and literature review. Am J Sports Med 35:1571–1580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Audenaert EA, Baelde N, Huysse W et al (2011) Development of a three-dimensional detection method of cam deformities in femoroacetabular impingement. Skelet Radiol 40:921–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hack K, Di Primio G, Rakhra K, Beaulé PE (2010) Prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg 92:2436–2444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kang ACL, Gooding AJ, Coates MH et al (2010) Computed tomography assessment of Hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 38:1160–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Scheidt RB, Galia CR, Diesel CV et al (2014) Prevalence of radiographic markers of femoroacetabular impingement in asymptomatic adults. Rev Col Bras Cir 41:36–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Khanna V, Caragianis A, DiPrimio G et al (2014) Incidence of Hip pain in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic volunteers: is the Cam deformity a risk factor for Hip pain? Am J Sports Med 42:793–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Van Houcke J, Yau WP, Yan CH et al (2015) Prevalence of radiographic parameters predisposing to femoroacetabular impingement in young asymptomatic chinese and white subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:310–317

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Laborie LB, Lehmann TG, Engesæter I et al (2013) Is a positive femoroacetabular impingement test a common finding in healthy young adults? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2267–2277

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Research Group, Nardo L, Parimi N et al (2015) Femoroacetabular impingement: prevalent and often asymptomatic in older Men: the osteoporotic fractures in Men study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4222-0

    Google Scholar 

  42. Reichenbach S, Leunig M, Werlen S et al (2011) Association between cam-type deformities and magnetic resonance imaging-detected structural hip damage: a cross-sectional study in young men. Arthritis Rheum 63:4023–4030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Harris MD, Kapron AL, Peters CL, Anderson AE (2014) Correlations between the alpha angle and femoral head asphericity: implications and recommendations for the diagnosis of cam femoroacetabular impingement. Eur J Radiol 83:788–796

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Masjedi M, Marquardt CS, Drummond IMH et al (2012) Cam type femoro-acetabular impingement: quantifying the diagnosis using three dimensional – ratios. Skelet Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00256-012-1459-5

    Google Scholar 

  45. Reichenbach S, Jüni P, Werlen S et al (2010) Prevalence of cam-type deformity on hip magnetic resonance imaging in young males: a cross-sectional study. Arthritis Care Res 62:1319–1327

  46. Laborie LB, Lehmann TG, Engesaeter IO et al (2011) Prevalence of radiographic findings thought to be associated with femoroacetabular impingement in a population-based cohort of 2081 healthy young adults. Radiology 260:494–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. de Bruin F, Reijnierse M, Farhang-Razi V, Bloem JL (2013) Radiographic signs associated with femoroacetabular impingement occur with high prevalence at all ages in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 23:3131–3139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Siebenrock KA, Wahab KHA, Werlen S, et al (2004) Abnormal extension of the femoral head epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 54–60

  49. Khan O, Witt J (2014) Evaluation of the magnitude and location of Cam deformity using three dimensional CT analysis. Bone Joint J 96-B:1167–1171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CWA (2012) Femoral antetorsion: comparing asymptomatic volunteers and patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology 263:475–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ricciardi BF, Fields K, Kelly BT et al (2014) Causes and risk factors for revision hip preservation surgery. Am J Sports Med 42:2627–2633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ito K, Minka-II MA, Leunig M et al (2001) Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. J Bone Joint Surg 83:171–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Yanke AB, Khair MM, Stanley R et al (2015) Sex differences in patients with CAM deformities with femoroacetabular impingement: 3-dimensional computed tomographic quantification. Arthroscopy. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.007

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tannenbaum EP, Zhang P, Maratt JD et al (2015) A computed tomography study of gender differences in acetabular version and morphology: implications for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthrosc: J Arthrosc Relat Surg 31:1247–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ross JR, Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ et al (2014) Effect of changes in pelvic tilt on range of motion to impingement and radiographic parameters of acetabular morphologic characteristics. Am J Sports Med 42:2402–2409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Harris MD, Datar M, Whitaker RT et al (2013) Statistical shape modeling of cam femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Res 31:1620–1626

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Masjedi M, Mandalia R, Aqil A, Cobb J (2014) Validation of the “FeMorph” software in planning cam osteochondroplasty by incorporating labral morphology. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 1–7. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2014.986654

  58. Steppacher SD, Tannast M, Werlen S, Siebenrock KA (2008) Femoral morphology differs between deficient and excessive acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:782–790

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Xia Y, Fripp J, Chandra SS, et al (2015) Automated 3D quantitative assessment and measurement of alpha angles from the femoral – junction using MR imaging. Physics in Medicine & Biology 7601–7616. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/19/7601

  60. Dandachli W, Islam SU, Liu M et al (2009) Three-dimensional CT analysis to determine acetabular retroversion and the implications for the management of femoro-acetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg - Bri Vol 91:1031

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Larson CM, Moreau-Gaudry A, Kelly BT et al (2014) Are normal hips being labeled as pathologic? a CT-based method for defining normal acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1247–1254

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Heyworth BE, Dolan MM, Nguyen JT et al (2012) Preoperative three-dimensional CT predicts intraoperative findings in Hip arthroscopy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1950–1957

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Kang RW, Yanke AB, Orias AE et al (2012) Emerging ideas: novel 3-D quantification and classification of Cam lesions in patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:358–362

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Kuhn AW, Ross JR, Bedi A (2015) Three-dimensional imaging and computer navigation in planning for hip preservation surgery. Sports Med Arthrosc 23:e31–e38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank José Roquette, João Sá, Isabel Vaz, and Pedro Patrício for their continuing and enthusiastic support toward clinical research at Hospital da Luz, and Rúben Teixeira, Ana Filipa Graça, Rogério Lopes, Diogo Corrente, João Novo, and Tiago Castela for their efforts toward optimizing technical issues and providing patient care

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. José Roquette, MD PhD. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise; however no complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board (Hospital da Luz Ethics Committee) approval was obtained and written informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MSK imaging Unit (UIME), Imaging Center, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal

    Vasco V. Mascarenhas & Augusto Gaspar

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal

    Paulo Rego

  3. Hospital CUF Descobertas, Lisbon, Portugal

    Pedro Dantas

  4. Hospital Sant Joan De Deu, Universitat De Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Francisco Soldado

  5. NOVA Medical School, Campo Mártires Pátria, Lisbon, Portugal

    José G Consciência

Authors
  1. Vasco V. Mascarenhas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulo Rego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pedro Dantas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Augusto Gaspar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francisco Soldado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. José G Consciência
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasco V. Mascarenhas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mascarenhas, V.V., Rego, P., Dantas, P. et al. Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects. Eur Radiol 27, 2011–2023 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4530-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4530-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation