RESUMO
PURPOSE: (1) To compare alpha angles measured on fluoroscopy with those measured on ultrasound pre- and postosteoplasty and (2) to determine whether ultrasound can adequately assess cam deformity correction. METHODS: Twelve full-body specimens (20 hips) were analyzed. Images using fluoroscopy and ultrasound were captured of the operative hip with the hip in 6 consistent positions: 3 views in hip extension (neutral [N], 30° internal rotation [IR], and 30° external rotation [ER]) and 3 views in hip flexion of 50° (neutral [F-N], 40° external rotation [F-ER40], and 60° external rotation [F-ER60]). A curved-array ultrasound transducer probe was used with the transducer placed in line with the femoral neck to evaluate the proximal femoral morphology. An open femoral osteoplasty using an anterior approach was performed. Fluoroscopy and ultrasound were again used to capture images with the hip in the same 6 positions. Bland-Altman plots were used to determine whether fluoroscopic and ultrasound alpha angles agreed at each position. Independent t-tests were used to compare the alpha angles between the 2 modalities at each position, and paired t-tests were used to compare preoperative and postoperative alpha angles at each position. RESULTS: No significant differences between the alpha angle on fluoroscopy and ultrasound at all 6 positions were appreciated preosteoplasty. The mean preoperative alpha angle on ultrasound in each position was as follows: N (55.4° ± 5.9° vs 43.0° ± 2.1°), IR (55.1° ± 5.3° vs 43.9° ± 5.5°), ER (58.6° ± 5.6° vs 42.8° ± 3.0°), F-N (53.9° ± 5.5° vs 41.6° ± 3.3°), F-ER40 (55.5° ± 4.6° vs 41.5° ± 2.7°), and F-ER60 (57.9° ± 6.5° vs 41.2° ± 4.2°). The mean preoperative and postoperative alpha angle on fluoroscopy in each position were as follows: N (56.0 ± 12.8° vs 43.1 ± 2.1°), IR (54.1 ± 13.4° vs 41.9 ± 2.9°), ER (61.2 ± 11.0° vs 44.2 ± 1.9°), F-N (57.9 ± 10.6° vs 44.0 ± 2.3°), F-ER40 (59 ± 8.2° vs 42 ± 2.2°), and F-ER60 (55 ± 7.6° vs 41.1 ± 2.6°). Postosteoplasty, there was no significant difference between the mean alpha angle on fluoroscopy versus ultrasound in any position except F-N (44.0 ± 2.3 vs 41.6 ± 3.3, P = .015). Bland-Altman plots showed a high level of agreement between alpha angle values on fluoroscopy and ultrasound at all positions pre- and postosteoplasty. There was a significant reduction in alpha angle measured on ultrasound and fluoroscopy at each position following osteoplasty. There were no significant differences in the delta of the pre- and postosteoplasty alpha angle measurements between fluoroscopy and ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound is a useful tool for assessing a cam deformity in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and for determining adequate resection of a cam deformity intraoperatively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Due to the inherent limitations and risks of the fluoroscopy, it is worth evaluating other nonionizing imaging modalities. Ultrasound has potential to be an accessible, cost-effective, and safe imaging modality that lacks radiation and is commonly used for intra-articular hip injections and dynamic examination of the hip.
