↓ Skip to main content

Overdiagnosing of femoroacetabular impingement: correlation between clinical presentation and computed tomography in symptomatic patients

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Overdiagnosing of femoroacetabular impingement: correlation between clinical presentation and computed tomography in symptomatic patients
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.rboe.2016.02.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Prazeres Canella, Guilherme Pradi Adam, Roberto André Ulhôa de Castillo, Daniel Codonho, Gerson Gandhi Ganev, Luiz Fernando de Vicenzi

Abstract

To correlate the angles between the acetabulum and the proximal femur in symptomatic patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), using computed tomography (CT). We retrospectively evaluated 103 hips from 103 patients, using multislice CT to measure the acetabular age, acetabular version (in its supraequatorial portion and in its middle third), femoral neck version, cervical-diaphyseal and alpha angles and the acetabular depth. For the statistical analysis, we used the Pearson correlation coefficient. There were inverse correlations between the following angles: (1) acetabular coverage versus alpha angle (p = 0.019); (2) acetabular version (supraequatorial) versus alpha angle (p = 0.049). For patients with femoral anteversion lower than 15 degrees: (1) acetabular version (supraequatorial) versus alpha angle (p = 0.026); (2) acetabular version (middle third) versus alpha angle (p = 0.02). For patients with acetabular version (supraequatorial) lower than 10 degrees: (1) acetabular version (supraequatorial) versus alpha angle (p = 0.004); (2) acetabular version (middle third) versus alpha angle (p = 0.009). There was a statistically significant inverse correlation between the acetabular version and alpha angles (the smaller the acetabular anteversion angle was, the larger the alpha angle was) in symptomatic patients, thus supporting the hypothesis that FAI occurs when cam and pincer findings due to acetabular retroversion are seen simultaneously, and that the latter alone does not cause FAI, which leads to overdiagnosis in these cases.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Other 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#23,319,379
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,744
of 313,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.