Are femoroacetabular impingement tomographic angles associated with the histological assessment of labral tears? A cadaveric study

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_LOPES_Applicability_of_a_novel_mathematical_model_for_the_2018.PDF (521.48 KB)
Citações na Scopus
5
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2018
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
Autores
DOMB, Benjamin G.
Citação
PLOS ONE, v.13, n.6, article ID e0199352, 14p, 2018
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Purpose This study sought to investigate the association between tomographic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) angles and histologically evaluated labral tears. The authors hypothesized that cadavers presenting with cam and pincer morphologies would present a higher prevalence of acetabular labral tears. Methods Twenty fresh cadavers were submitted to computed tomography. Standard FAI angles were measured, including the alpha angle, femoral version, acetabular version, Tonnis angle and center-edge angle. A cam lesion was defined as an alpha angle greater than 50 degrees. A pincer lesion was defined as a center-edge angle greater than 40 degrees, a Tonnis angle less than 0 degrees or acetabular version less than 0 degrees. After dissection, three fragments of each acetabulum, corresponding to the antero-superior, superior and postero-superior acetabular rim, were obtained. These fragments were submitted to routine histological preparation. Each slide was evaluated for possible labral tears. Tears were classified according to their Seldes type. Results The mean age of the cadavers was 50.2 years (SD: 7.4; 13 males). Sixteen (80%) of the cadavers had a cam lesion, and eight cadavers (40%) had a pincer lesion. Histologically, 16 (80%) of the cadavers had a labral tear in at least one region. According to the Seldes classification, 60.7% and 28.6% of these labral tears were type 1 and type 2, respectively. A mixed type of labral tear (10.7%), which represented a new form of Seldes tear, was described. Cadavers with a labral tear had significantly higher alpha angles than other cadavers (53.29 degrees vs 49.33 degrees, p = 0.01). Pincer lesions were not associated with labral tears. We found no association between pincer or cam lesions and Seldes classification. Conclusion Cadavers presenting with higher alpha angles had a higher incidence of labral tears. No association was found between FAI and Seldes classification. Clinical relevance This study demonstrated a high prevalence of FAI abnormalities associated with histological alterations in a cadaveric sample. Joint damage may be present in the early stages of FAI.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/28189
Referências
  1. Audenaert EA, 2012, ARTHROSCOPY, V28, P1784, DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.06.012
  2. Beaule PE, 2012, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V470, P3361, DOI 10.1007/s11999-012-2601-3
  3. Beck M, 2005, J BONE JOINT SURG BR, V87B, P1012, DOI 10.1302/0301-620X.87B7.15203
  4. Bedi A, 2011, ARTHROSCOPY, V27, P1720, DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.08.288
  5. Clohisy JC, 2008, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V90A, P47, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.H.00756
  6. Dandachli W, 2011, SKELETAL RADIOL, V40, P877, DOI 10.1007/s00256-010-1065-3
  7. Dolan MM, 2011, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V469, P831, DOI 10.1007/s11999-010-1539-6
  8. Domb Benjamin G, 2011, HSS J, V7, P145, DOI 10.1007/s11420-011-9198-z
  9. Elias-Jones CJ, 2015, AM J SPORT MED, V43, P1875, DOI 10.1177/0363546515588176
  10. Frank JM, 2015, ARTHROSCOPY, V31, P1199, DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.042
  11. Ganz R, 2003, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P112, DOI 10.1097/01.blo.0000096804.78689.c2
  12. Griffin DR, 2016, BRIT J SPORT MED, V50, P1169, DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096743
  13. Hack K, 2010, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V92A, P2436, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.J.01280
  14. Hashimoto S, 2013, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V95A, P1457, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.L.00497
  15. Ito K, 2004, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P262, DOI 10.1097/01.blo.0000144861.11193.17
  16. Johnston TL, 2008, ARTHROSCOPY, V24, P669, DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.01.010
  17. Kohl S, 2011, HIP INT, V21, P154, DOI 10.5301/HIP.2011.6515
  18. Kutty S, 2012, INT ORTHOP, V36, P505, DOI 10.1007/s00264-011-1302-y
  19. Monazzam S, 2013, BONE JOINT J, V95B, P598, DOI 10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.30118
  20. Monazzam S, 2013, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V471, P2233, DOI 10.1007/s11999-012-2651-6
  21. Nepple JJ, 2013, J AM ACAD ORTHOP SUR, V21, pS20, DOI 10.5435/JAAOS-21-07-S20
  22. Notzli HP, 2002, J BONE JOINT SURG BR, V84B, P556, DOI 10.1302/0301-620X.84B4.12014
  23. Pfirrmann CWA, 2006, RADIOLOGY, V240, P778, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2403050767
  24. Philippon MJ, 2007, AM J SPORT MED, V35, P1571, DOI 10.1177/0363546507300258
  25. Pollard TCB, 2010, ACTA ORTHOP, V81, P134, DOI 10.3109/17453671003619011
  26. Rakhra KS, 2009, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V467, P660, DOI 10.1007/s11999-008-0627-3
  27. Register B, 2012, AM J SPORT MED, V40, P2720, DOI 10.1177/0363546512462124
  28. Seldes RM, 2001, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P232
  29. Siebenrock KA, 2004, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P54
  30. Siebenrock KA, 2003, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V85A, P278, DOI 10.2106/00004623-200302000-00015
  31. Tannast M, 2007, AM J ROENTGENOL, V188, P1540, DOI 10.2214/AJR.06.0921
  32. Tomczak RJ, 1997, AM J ROENTGENOL, V168, P791, DOI 10.2214/ajr.168.3.9057536
  33. Vawklang Navaphan, 2012, J Med Assoc Thai, V95 Suppl 9, pS104

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOT
Carregar mais