ArticleInsights into imaging2024
Femoral head decentration on hip MRI: comparison between imaging planes, methods of contrast administration, and hip deformities.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the prevalence of femoral head decentration (FHD) on different MR imaging planes in patients undergoing direct/indirect hip MR arthrography (MRA) with asymptomatic controls and to evaluate its association with osseous deformities.
methodsIRB-approved retrospective single-center study of symptomatic hips undergoing direct or indirect hip MRA at 3 T. Asymptomatic participants underwent non-contrast hip MRI at 3 T. FHD was defined as a continuous fluid layer between the acetabulum and femoral head and assessed on axial, sagittal and radial images. The association of intra-articular/intra-venous contrast agents and the prevalence of FHD was evaluated. The association of FHD with osseous deformities and joint damage was assessed using multiple logistic regression analysis.
resultsThree-hundred ninety-four patients (447 hips, mean age 31 ± 9 years, 247 females) were included and compared to 43 asymptomatic controls (43 hips, mean age 31 ± 6 years, 26 females). FHD was most prevalent on radial images and more frequent in symptomatic hips (30% versus 2%, p < 0.001). FHD prevalence was not associated with the presence/absence of intra-articular contrast agents (30% versus 22%, OR = 1.5 (95% CI 0.9-2.5), p = 0.125). FHD was associated with hip dysplasia (OR = 6.1 (3.3-11.1), p < 0.001), excessive femoral torsion (OR = 3.0 (1.3-6.8), p = 0.010), and severe cartilage damage (OR = 3.6 (2.0-6.7), p < 0.001).
conclusionWhile rare in asymptomatic patients, femoral head decentration in symptomatic patients is associated with osseous deformities predisposing to hip instability, as well as with extensive cartilage damage. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Decentration of the femoral head on radial MRA may be interpreted as a sign of hip instability in symptomatic hips without extensive cartilage defects. Its presence could unmask hip instability and yield promise in surgical decision-making. KEY POINTS: The best method of identifying femoral head decentration is radial MRI. The presence/absence of intra-articular contrast is not associated with femoral head decentration. Femoral head decentration is associated with hip deformities predisposing to hip instability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.