Patient-Specific 3-D Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Dynamic Simulation of Hip Impingement and Range of Motion Can Replace 3-D Computed Tomography-Based Simulation for Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement: Implications for Planning Open Hip Preservation Surgery and Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a complex 3-dimensional (3D) hip abnormality that can cause hip pain and osteoarthritis in young and active patients of childbearing age. Imaging is static and based on 2-dimensional radiographs or computed tomography (CT) scans. Recently, CT-based 3D impingement simulation was introduced for patient-specific assessments of hip deformities, whereas magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers a radiation-free alternative for surgical planning before hip arthroscopic surgery.

PURPOSE

To (1) investigate the difference between 3D models of the hip, (2) correlate the location of hip impingement and range of motion (ROM), and (3) correlate diagnostic parameters while comparing CT- and MRI-based osseous 3D models of the hip in symptomatic patients with FAI.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

The authors performed an institutional review board-approved comparative and retrospective study of 31 hips in 26 symptomatic patients with FAI. We compared CT- and MRI-based osseous 3D models of the hip in the same patients. 3D CT scans (slice thickness, 1 mm) of the entire pelvis and the distal femoral condyles were obtained. Preoperative MRI of the hip was performed including an axial-oblique T1 VIBE sequence (slice thickness, 1 mm) and 2 axial anisotropic (1.2 × 1.2 × 1 mm) T1 VIBE Dixon sequences of the entire pelvis and the distal femoral condyles. Threshold-based semiautomatic reconstruction of 3D models was performed using commercial software. CT- and MRI-based 3D models were compared with specifically developed software.

RESULTS

(1) The difference between MRI- and CT-based 3D models was less than 1 mm for the proximal femur and the acetabulum (median surface distance, 0.4 ± 0.1 mm and 0.4 ± 0.2 mm, respectively). (2) The correlation for ROM values was excellent ( = 0.99, < .001) between CT and MRI. The mean absolute difference for flexion and extension was 1.9°± 1.5° and 2.6°± 1.9°, respectively. The location of impingement did not differ between CT- and MRI-based 3D ROM analysis in all 12 of 12 acetabular and 11 of 12 femoral clock-face positions. (3) The correlation for 6 diagnostic parameters was excellent ( = 0.98, < .001) between CT and MRI. The mean absolute difference for inclination and anteversion was 2.0°± 1.8° and 1.0°± 0.8°, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patient-specific and radiation-free MRI-based dynamic 3D simulation of hip impingement and ROM can replace CT-based 3D simulation for patients with FAI of childbearing age. On the basis of these excellent results, we intend to change our clinical practice, and we will use MRI-based 3D models for future clinical practice instead of CT-based 3D models. This allows radiation-free and patient-specific preoperative 3D impingement simulation for surgical planning and simulation of open hip preservation surgery and hip arthroscopic surgery.