Outcomes for the Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome With Acetabular Retroversion: A 3D Computed Tomography Analysis

Background: Increased attention has been directed toward the acetabular morphology in the management of patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Whether acetabular version influences patient-reported outcomes remains poorly understood. Purpose: To use computed tomography (CT)–based 3-dimensional (3D) bone models to (1) quantify acetabular version in patients with FAIS, (2) compare acetabular version on 3D bone models with current plain radiographic parameters, and (3) explore the relationship between the magnitude of acetabular version and minimum 2-year clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Three-dimensional models of the pelvis and femur were generated by semiautomated segmentation and aligned to a standard coordinate system. Acetabular version was quantified at the 3-o’clock position, and 3 groups were identified: acetabular retroversion (AR; <15°), normal acetabular version (NV; 15°-25°), and acetabular anteversion (AA; >25°). Patient demographic characteristics, plain radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes were analyzed, including the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. Results: Preoperative CT scans were acquired in 105 consecutive patients before hip arthroscopy for FAIS, of which 84 (80.0%) completed minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes. The mean ± SD age and body mass index of patients were 33.9 ± 12.6 years and 26.0 ± 5.4, respectively; 70.2% were female. The number of patients and the mean central acetabular version within each group were as follows: AR (n = 12; 11.3°± 2.7°), NV (n = 56; 20.7°± 2.9°), and AA (n = 16; 28.5°± 2.7°). Posterior wall sign was the only plain radiographic parameter that was significantly more observed in the AR group than in the other 2 groups. At minimum 2-year follow-up, significant between-group differences in the mHHS, iHOT-12, and VAS for pain and satisfaction (P <.05) were appreciated, while post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction (P <.0167) found lower scores on the mHHS, iHOT-12, and VAS for pain and satisfaction in patients with AR as compared with NV. Lower scores on the VAS for satisfaction were reported in patients with AR when compared with AA (P =.006) but not on the mHHS (P =.023), iHOT-12 (P =.032), or VAS for pain (P =.072). Conclusion: Traditional plain radiographic indices to describe AR, including crossover sign and ischial spine sign, were not reliable in defining AR according to 3D models derived from CT scans. Only the posterior wall sign was observed in a higher proportion in the AR group. Patients with AR demonstrated inferior outcomes when compared with patients with NV and AA after hip arthroscopy for FAIS.