In MRI, Collodiaphysealangle (CDA), Acetabular angle (AA), Tönnis angle (T-angle), acetabular depth (AD), anteversion angle (AnA),protrusio acetabuli (PA) and alpha angle (AF) were measured.Results: The mean CDA, AA, T-angle, AD, PA, AnA, AF was 131.90o, 35.90o, 7.20o, 21 mm, (-4.9) mm, 17.90o, 50o respectively.CDA, T-angle and AD values were lower at women (p
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: We aimed to determine, the mean values of the hip angles at Magnetic Resonance Imaging(MRI) of Turkishpatients, gender variances and to demonstrate the difference in measurements between the painless and painful sidesof the same case.Methods: Retrospectively, 182 patients who underwent hip MRI for hip pain were included in the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Objectives: We aimed to determine, the mean values of the hip angles at Magnetic Resonance Imaging(MRI) of Turkishpatients, gender variances and to demonstrate the difference in measurements between the painless and painful sidesof the same case.Methods: Retrospectively, 182 patients who underwent hip MRI for hip pain were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In MRI, Collodiaphysealangle (CDA), Acetabular angle (AA), Tönnis angle (T-angle), acetabular depth (AD), anteversion angle (AnA),protrusio acetabuli (PA) and alpha angle (AF) were measured.Results: The mean CDA, AA, T-angle, AD, PA, AnA, AF was 131.90o, 35.90o, 7.20o, 21 mm, (-4.9) mm, 17.90o, 50o respectively.CDA, T-angle and AD values were lower at women (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to determine, the mean values of the hip angles at Magnetic Resonance Imaging(MRI) of Turkishpatients, gender variances and to demonstrate the difference in measurements between the painless and painful sidesof the same case.Methods: Retrospectively, 182 patients who underwent hip MRI for hip pain were included in the study. In MRI, Collodiaphysealangle (CDA), Acetabular angle (AA), Tönnis angle (T-angle), acetabular depth (AD), anteversion angle (AnA),protrusio acetabuli (PA) and alpha angle (AF) were measured.Results: The mean CDA, AA, T-angle, AD, PA, AnA, AF was 131.90o, 35.90o, 7.20o, 21 mm, (-4.9) mm, 17.90o, 50o respectively.CDA, T-angle and AD values were lower at women (p
🔖
Cite This Article
CENKERİ, H. Ç., ÇİÇEK, E. D. (2022). Measurement Changes Used for Femoroacetabular Impingement Diagnosis in Hip Pain. Eurasian Journal of Medical Investigation, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 228–234. https://ajindex.com/articles/508676
Tanaka H, Watarai K, Osawa I, Shiibashi M, Kim YK, et al. Focal concavity of posterior superior acetabulum and its relation with acetabular dysplasia and retroversion in adults without advanced hip osteoartrhritis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2015
[CrossRef ] 2. Jorgsen RW, Dippmann C, Dahl L, Strürup J. Treatment algorithm for patients with non-arthritic hip pain, suspect for an intra articular pathology. The open orthopaedics Journal 2016
404–411. [CrossRef ] 3. Eceviz E, Söylemez MS, Uygur ME, Ozkan K, Ozkut AT, et al. Mid-term radiological and clinical results of incomplete triple pelvic osteotomy. Acta Orthopedica et Traumatologica Turcica 2016
660–4. [CrossRef ] 4. Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R, Kim YJ, Beaule PE, et al. Radiographic Evaluation of the Hip has Limited Realibity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009
666–75. [CrossRef ] 5. Tannast M, Sienbenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular Impingement: radiographic diagnosis-what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007
1540–52. [CrossRef] 6. Schmitz MR, Bittersohl B, Zaps D et al. Spectrum of radiographic femoroacetabular Impingement morphology in adolescents and young adults: An EOS-based double-cohort study. J Bone Joint Sug Am 2013
e90:1–8. [CrossRef ] 7. Pytiak A, Bomar JD, Peterson JB, Schmitz MR, Pennock AT, et al. Analysis of spinal alignment and pelvic parameters on upright radiographs: implications for acetabular development. J Hip Preserv Surg 2016
208–214. [CrossRef ] 8. Hooper P, Oak SR, Lynch TS, Ibrahim G, Goodwin R, et al. Adolescent Femoroacetabular Impingement: Gender Differences in Hip Morphology. Arthroscopy 2016
2495–502. [CrossRef ] 9. Hulki Başaloğlu, Abdulkadir Akbaş. Insan femurlarında torsiyon ve kolladiafizer açıları, birbirleri arasındaki ilişkiler ve açı değerleri üzerinde etkili bazı faktörler. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 1996
299–302. 10. Jackson TJ, Estess AA, Adamson GJ. Supine and Standing AP Pelvis Radiographs in the Evaluation of Pincer Femoroacetabular İmpingement. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research 2016
1692–6. [CrossRef ] 11. Ross JR, Tannenbaum EP, Nepple JJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, et al. Functional acetabuler orientation varies between supine and standing radiographs. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research 2015
1267–73. [CrossRef ] 12. Smith KM, Gerrie BJ, McCulloch PC, Lintner DM, Harris JD. Comparison of MRI, CT, Dunn 45° and Dunn 90° alpha angle measurements in femoroacetabular impingement. Hip