Yamasaki Takuma, Yasunaga Yuji, Shoji Takeshi, Izumi Sotaro, Hachisuka Susumu, Ochi Mitsuo
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Hiroshima Prefectural Rehabilitation Center, Hiroshima, Japan.
Arthroscopy. 2015 Jul;31(7):1403-10. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.022. Epub 2015 Mar 29.
The purpose of this study was to clarify the criteria for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) by way of a systematic review of FAI-related articles, as well as to define more appropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria in the diagnosis of FAI.
A systematic review of FAI-related articles was performed using Web of Science. Thirty-two articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In these articles we investigated radiographic findings for the diagnosis of FAI and the prevalence of each FAI-related finding.
The crossover sign was used in 22 articles (69%); acetabular index, 9 articles (28%); posterior wall sign, 7 articles (22%); and prominence of the ischial spine sign, 3 articles (7%). Regarding acetabular coverage, the lateral center-edge (LCE) angle was described in 13 articles (41%), in which an LCE angle either of more than 40° or of more than 30° combined with an acetabular index of less than 0° was considered an inclusion criterion for pincer impingement. Meanwhile, the alpha angle was used in 28 articles (88%), in which 50° or 55° was recommended as a positive finding of cam impingement.
Common findings of pincer or cam deformity were used to select FAI patients with sufficient coverage of the acetabulum with an LCE angle of more than 25°. Patients with an LCE angle of less than 25° or those with local acetabular deficiency regardless of having a normal LCE angle should be excluded from the FAI criteria, even if the FAI-related findings are positive.
Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.
本研究旨在通过对与股骨髋臼撞击症(FAI)相关文章的系统评价,阐明FAI的诊断标准,并确定在FAI诊断中更合适的纳入或排除标准。
使用科学网对与FAI相关的文章进行系统评价。32篇文章符合纳入和排除标准。在这些文章中,我们研究了用于FAI诊断的影像学表现以及每种FAI相关表现的发生率。
22篇文章(69%)使用了交叉征;9篇文章(28%)使用了髋臼指数;7篇文章(22%)使用了后壁征;3篇文章(7%)使用了坐骨棘突出征。关于髋臼覆盖情况,13篇文章(41%)描述了外侧中心边缘(LCE)角,其中LCE角大于40°或大于30°且髋臼指数小于0°被认为是钳夹撞击症的纳入标准。同时,28篇文章(88%)使用了α角,其中推荐50°或55°作为凸轮撞击症的阳性表现。
采用钳夹或凸轮畸形的常见表现来选择髋臼覆盖良好(LCE角大于25°)的FAI患者。LCE角小于25°的患者或髋臼局部有缺陷(无论LCE角是否正常)的患者,即使FAI相关表现为阳性,也应排除在FAI诊断标准之外。
IV级,对I级至IV级研究的系统评价。