Spinopelvic Parameters Do Not Predict the Sagittal Orientation of the Acetabulum

Background: The orientation of the acetabulum has a fundamental role in impingement and instability of the hip, and the spinopelvic parameters are thought to predict the sagittal orientation of the acetabulum (SOA). However, similar to the acetabular version (axial orientation) and inclination (coronal orientation), the cephalic or caudal orientation of the acetabulum in the sagittal plane, or SOA, may primarily be an intrinsic feature of the acetabulum itself. Purpose: To determine whether the spinopelvic parameters predict the sagittal orientation of the acetabulum in individuals without lumbar deformity. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 89 patients (94 hips; 62 female, 27 male; mean ± SD age, 45.9 ± 15.4 years) without lumbosacral deformity who underwent magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) for assessment of hip pain. The SOA was determined in the sagittal cut MRA. A line was drawn at the distal limit of the anterior and posterior acetabular horns longitudinally to the transverse ligament, and the angle between this line and the axial plane represented the SOA. The sacral slope, pelvic incidence, and spinopelvic tilt were determined using a 3-dimensional cursor and the axial, sagittal, and coronal cuts. All MRA studies were performed with the patient in the supine position. Results: The SOA had a mean ± SD cephalic orientation of 18° ± 6.6°. No significant correlation was observed between the SOA and the sacral slope ( r = –0.03; P = .77). A weak correlation was observed between the SOA and the pelvic incidence ( r = 0.22; P = .03) and between the SOA and the spinopelvic tilt ( r = 0.41; P < .01). Conclusion: The SOA cannot be presumed based on the spinopelvic parameter. Similar to the well-known parameters to assess the axial and coronal orientation of the acetabulum, the assessment of the SOA demands acetabular-specific parameters. Additional studies are necessary to assess the SOA in asymptomatic hips, including disparities between genders. Clinically significant values for abnormal SOA of the acetabulum remain to be defined.

Retrospective Analysis of the Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram Injections of the Hip in the Office Setting

Background: Ultrasound (US)–guided intra-articular hip injections have been proposed in the literature to be accurate, reliable, and safe alternatives to fluoroscopy-guided injections. Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of US-guided magnetic resonance (MR) arthrogram injections of the hip performed in the office setting by a single orthopaedic surgeon and elucidate the potential effects that patient age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) have on contrast placement. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: From a review of the senior author’s office database, 89 patients (101 hips) who had US-guided MR arthrogram injections performed between December 2014 and June 2016 were identified. Official radiology reports were evaluated to determine whether extra-articular contrast was noted. Patient variables, including BMI, age, and sex, were evaluated between patients who had inappropriately placed contrast and those who did not. Results: Of the 101 hip injections, there were 6 cases that demonstrated inadequate contrast placement within the joint, likely secondary to extravasation or incorrect placement; however, an MR arthrogram was adequately interpreted in all cases. There were no significant differences noted between those with appropriate versus inappropriate contrast placement when evaluating BMI ( P = .57), age ( P = .33), or sex ( P = .67), and neither group had an adverse event. Conclusion: US-guided injections are safe and accurate alternatives to fluoroscopy-guided injections in the office setting, with 94% accuracy. Furthermore, BMI, age, and sex did not play a statistically significant role among patients with inappropriately placed contrast.

Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram Referrals by Subspecialist and Non-Subspecialist Orthopaedic Surgeons: What are the Findings?

Background: Although subspecialist orthopaedic surgeons usually request Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram (MRA) examinations, some orthopaedic surgeons may request this examination for a body part that is different from their subspecialty. The purpose of the study is to compare the MRA and the clinical findings in the subspecialist and non-subspecialist groups. Method: Retrospective analysis of MRA examinations over a 6-month period. Findings were compared with the clinical information. Results: There were 144 examinations (69 shoulder, 42 wrist and 33 hip). 85% of these were subspecialist referrals; 60% of them showed findings compatible with the clinical diagnosis. 15% of the MRA examinations were non-subspecialist referrals; 52% of them correlated with the clinical findings. Overall, clinical information agreed with MRA findings for shoulder labral tears, hip labral tears and wrist triangular fibrocartilage complex tears in 63.3%, 64.5% and 61.5% respectively. The subspecialist group were more accurate than the non-subspecialist group in diagnosing hip labral tears (68% vs. 50%) and triangular fibrocartilage complex tears (62.5% vs. 50%). On the contrary, shoulder MRA and clinical findings correlated better in the non-subspecialist group (77.8%) compared to the subspecialist group (63.3%). However, the small number of requests generated by the non-subspecialist group may affect the results. Suspected scapholunate ligament injury showed low correlation with MRA at 26.7% (33.3% in the subspecialist group and 0% in the non-subspecialist group). Conclusion: Generally, the clinical findings are more accurate in the subspecialist referrals when compared to MRA findings and therefore a subspecialist referral is preferred. The low agreement between clinically suspected scapholunate ligament injuries and wrist MRA probably reflects the relative difficulty in establishing this diagnosis clinically.