Preoperative quantitative imaging use in predicting intraoperative decision for hip labral repair versus reconstruction.

Catherine C Alder, Trevor J Wait, Caleb J Wipf, Carson L Keeter, Adam Peszek, Stephanie W Mayer, Charles P Ho, Alexandra Orahovats, James W Genuario
Author Information
  1. Catherine C Alder: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. ORCID
  2. Trevor J Wait: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
  3. Caleb J Wipf: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
  4. Carson L Keeter: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
  5. Adam Peszek: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
  6. Stephanie W Mayer: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
  7. Charles P Ho: Department of Radiology-Diagnostics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
  8. Alexandra Orahovats: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. ORCID
  9. James W Genuario: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.

Abstract

Intraoperative assessment of labral quality determines arthroscopic repair versus reconstruction for hip labral tear treatment. T2 mapping technology discriminates between healthy and damaged cartilage. This study investigated if T2 mapping magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can preoperatively predict labral repair versus reconstruction. This retrospective comparative study included patients with preoperative T2 mapping MRI who underwent hip labral repair or reconstruction at a single institution between March 2021 and February 2023. Three reviewers using Syngo.via recorded average T2 mapping values for the labrum, acetabular cartilage, and femoral cartilage on patients' sagittal cut. Intraclass correlation values estimated rater agreement of T2 values. T2 means were compared using -tests. Three Bayesian regression models were created, separately analyzing the labrum, acetabular cartilage, and femoral cartilage mapping values. The 95% credible intervals determined the significance of regression coefficients. A total of 63 operations were included: 14 reconstructions and 49 repairs. Participants were 14- to 50-years-old, with 35 females and 28 males. There was excellent agreement among raters for T2 measurements. There was no significant difference in average T2 values between the repair and reconstruction groups. All three models showed that the odds of labral reconstruction were negatively associated with T2 mapping values, positively associated with age, and increased in males. Preoperative T2 mapping values from the labrum, acetabular, and femoral cartilage are negatively associated with the odds of needing a labral reconstruction. Increased age and being male are associated with increased odds of needing a labral reconstruction. This study will allow further evaluation into other variables that predict labral repair versus reconstruction.

References

  1. Arthroscopy. 2018 Feb;34(2):433-440 [PMID: 29100774]
  2. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021 Aug 18;3(5):e1569-e1576 [PMID: 34712994]
  3. Clin Sports Med. 2016 Jul;35(3):345-360 [PMID: 27343389]
  4. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Sep 20;6(9):2325967118797324 [PMID: 30263897]
  5. Arthroscopy. 2013 Jan;29(1):46-53 [PMID: 23276413]
  6. Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 1;10(1):14396 [PMID: 32873848]
  7. Arthroscopy. 2008 May;24(5):534-9 [PMID: 18442685]
  8. Arthroscopy. 2019 Jul;35(7):2175-2186 [PMID: 31272640]
  9. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(9):2079-2088 [PMID: 29847149]
  10. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Aug;41(8):1750-6 [PMID: 23644149]
  11. J Clin Med. 2023 Apr 25;12(9): [PMID: 37176550]
  12. Eur Radiol. 2019 Oct;29(10):5664-5672 [PMID: 30888480]
  13. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Feb 28;15(1):86 [PMID: 32111250]
  14. Am J Sports Med. 2020 Jan;48(1):173-180 [PMID: 31877107]
  15. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019 Jun;12(2):156-165 [PMID: 30919325]
  16. Arthroscopy. 2016 Aug;32(8):1601-11 [PMID: 27132779]
  17. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 Oct;21(10):1474-84 [PMID: 23896316]
  18. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023 May;33(4):1291-1297 [PMID: 35612626]
  19. EFORT Open Rev. 2018 Apr 26;3(4):121-129 [PMID: 29780619]
  20. Cartilage. 2014 Jul;5(3):154-64 [PMID: 26069695]
  21. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Jun 19;7(6):2325967119848982 [PMID: 31259183]
  22. Arthrosc Tech. 2015 Jul 27;4(4):e323-9 [PMID: 26759770]
  23. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017 Nov;25(11):1841-1849 [PMID: 28801212]
  24. Cartilage. 2014 Jan;5(1):11-5 [PMID: 26069681]
  25. Am J Sports Med. 2019 Jul;47(9):2029-2037 [PMID: 31233328]
  26. Am J Sports Med. 2013 May;41(5):980-7 [PMID: 23548806]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0T2labralreconstructionmappingvaluesrepaircartilageversusassociatedhipstudylabrumacetabularfemoraloddsimagingMRIpredictThreeusingaverageagreementregressionmodelsmalesnegativelyageincreasedPreoperativeneedingIntraoperativeassessmentqualitydeterminesarthroscopicteartreatmenttechnologydiscriminateshealthydamagedinvestigatedmagneticresonancecanpreoperativelyretrospectivecomparativeincludedpatientspreoperativeunderwentsingleinstitutionMarch2021February2023reviewersSyngoviarecordedpatients'sagittalcutIntraclasscorrelationestimatedratermeanscompared-testsBayesiancreatedseparatelyanalyzing95%credibleintervalsdeterminedsignificancecoefficientstotal63operationsincluded:14reconstructions49repairsParticipants14-50-years-old35females28excellentamongratersmeasurementssignificantdifferencegroupsthreeshowedpositivelyIncreasedmalewillallowevaluationvariablesquantitativeusepredictingintraoperativedecision

Similar Articles

Cited By