Search

To validate 3D methods for femoral version measurement, we asked: (1) Can a fully automated segmentation of the entire femur and 3D measurement of femoral version using a neck based method and a head-shaft based method be performed? (2) How do automatic 3D-based computed tomography (CT) measurements of femoral version compare to the most commonly used 2D-based measurements utilizing four different landmarks? Retrospective study (May 2017 to June 2018) evaluating 45 symptomatic patients (57 hips, mean age 18.7 ± 5.1 years) undergoing pelvic and femoral CT. Femoral version was assessed using four previously described methods (Lee, Reikeras, Tomczak, and Murphy). Fully-automated segmentation yielded 3D femur models used to measure femoral version via femoral neck- and head-shaft approaches. Mean femoral version with 95% confidence intervals, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated, and Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Automatic 3D segmentation was highly accurate, with mean dice coefficients of 0.98 ± 0.03 and 0.97 ± 0.02 for femur/pelvis, respectively. Mean difference between 3D head-shaft- (27.4 ± 16.6°) and 3D neck methods (12.9 ± 13.7°) was 14.5 ± 10.7° (p < 0.001). The 3D neck method was closer to the proximal Lee (-2.4 ± 5.9°, -4.4 to 0.5°, p = 0.009) and Reikeras (2 ± 5.6°, 95% CI: 0.2 to 3.8°, p = 0.03) methods. The 3D head-shaft method was closer to the distal Tomczak (-1.3 ± 7.5°, 95% CI: -3.8 to 1.1°, p = 0.57) and Murphy (1.5 ± 5.4°, -0.3 to 3.3°, p = 0.12) methods. Automatic 3D neck-based-/head-shaft methods yielded femoral version angles comparable to the proximal/distal 2D-based methods, when applying fully-automated segmentations., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society.)

Background: Femoral version deformities have recently been identified as a major contributor to femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). An in-depth understanding of the specific labral damage patterns caused by femoral version deformities may help to understand the underlying pathomorphologies in symptomatic patients and select the appropriate surgical treatment., Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) Is there a correlation between femoral version and the mean cross-sectional area of the acetabular labrum? (2) Is there a difference in the location of lesions of the acetabular labrum between hips with increased femoral version and hips with decreased femoral version? (3) Is there a difference in the pattern of lesions of the acetabular labrum between hips with increased femoral version and hips with decreased femoral version?, Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative study. Between November 2009 and September 2016, we evaluated 640 hips with FAI. We considered patients with complete diagnostic imaging including magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) of the affected hip with radial slices of the proximal femur and axial imaging of the distal femoral condyles (allowing for calculation of femoral version) as eligible. Based on that, 97% (620 of 640 hips) were eligible; a further 77% (491 of 640 hips) were excluded because they had either normal femoral version (384 hips), incomplete imaging (20 hips), a lateral center-edge angle < 22° (43 hips) or > 39° (16 hips), age > 50 years (8 hips), or a history of pediatric hip disease (20 hips), leaving 20% (129 of 640 hips) of patients with a mean age of 27 ± 9 years for analysis, and 61% (79 of 129 hips) were female. Patients were assigned to either the increased (> 30°) or decreased (< 5°) femoral version group. The labral cross-sectional area was measured on radial MR images in all patients. The location-dependent labral cross-sectional area, presence of labral tears, and labral tear patterns were assessed using the acetabular clockface system and compared among groups., Results: In hips with increased femoral version, the labrum was normal in size (21 ± 6 mm 2 [95% confidence interval 20 to 23 mm 2 ]), whereas hips with decreased femoral version showed labral hypotrophy (14 ± 4 mm 2 [95% CI 13 to 15 mm 2 ]; p < 0.01). In hips with increased femoral version, labral tears were located more anteriorly (median 1:30 versus 12:00; p < 0.01). Hips with increased femoral version exhibited damage of the anterior labrum with more intrasubstance tears anterosuperiorly (17% [222 of 1322] versus 9% [93 of 1084]; p < 0.01) and partial tears anteroinferiorly (22% [36 of 165] versus 6% [8 of 126]; p < 0.01). Hips with decreased femoral version showed superior labral damage consisting primarily of partial labral tears., Conclusion: In the evaluation of patients with FAI, the term "labral tear" is not accurate enough to describe labral pathology. Based on high-quality radial MR images, surgeons should always evaluate the combination of labral tear location and labral tear pattern, because these may provide insight into associated femoral version abnormalities, which can inform appropriate surgical treatment. Future studies should examine symptomatic patients with normal femoral version, as well as an asymptomatic control group, to describe the effect of femoral version on labral morphology across the entire spectrum of pathomorphologies., Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Although femoral retroversion has been linked to the onset of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), and may result from a rotation of the femoral epiphysis around the epiphyseal tubercle leading to femoral retroversion, femoral version has rarely been described in patients with SCFE. Furthermore, the prevalence of actual femoral retroversion and the effect of different measurement methods on femoral version angles has yet to be studied in SCFE., Questions/purposes: (1) Do femoral version and the prevalence of femoral retroversion differ between hips with SCFE and the asymptomatic contralateral side? (2) How do the mean femoral version angles and the prevalence of femoral retroversion change depending on the measurement method used? (3) What is the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of these measurement methods?, Methods: For this retrospective, controlled, single-center study, we reviewed our institutional database for patients who were treated for unilateral SCFE and who had undergone a pelvic CT scan. During the period in question, the general indication for obtaining a CT scan was to define the surgical strategy based on the assessment of deformity severity in patients with newly diagnosed SCFE or with previous in situ fixation. After applying prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 79 patients. The mean age was 15 ± 4 years, 48% (38 of 79) of the patients were male, and 56% (44 of 79) were obese (defined as a BMI > 95th percentile (mean BMI 34 ± 9 kg/m2). One radiology resident (6 years of experience) measured femoral version of the entire study group using five different methods. Femoral neck version was measured as the orientation of the femoral neck. Further measurement methods included the femoral head's center and differed regarding the level of landmarks for the proximal femoral reference axis. From proximal to distal, this included the most-proximal methods (Lee et al. and Reikerås et al.) and most-distal methods (Tomczak et al. and Murphy et al.). Most proximally (Lee et al. method), we used the most cephalic junction of the greater trochanter as the landmark and, most distally, we used the center base of the femoral neck superior to the lesser trochanter (Murphy et al.). The orientation of the distal femoral condyles served as the distal reference axis for all five measurement methods. All five methods were compared side-by-side (involved versus uninvolved hip), and comparisons among all five methods were performed using paired t-tests. The prevalence of femoral retroversion (< 0°) was compared using a chi-square test. A subset of patients was measured twice by the first observer and by a second orthopaedic resident (2 years of experience) to assess intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability; for this assessment, we used intraclass correlation coefficients., Results: The mean femoral neck version was lower in hips with SCFE than in the contralateral side (-2° ± 13° versus 7° ± 11°; p < 0.001). This yielded a mean side-by side difference of -8° ± 11° (95% CI -11° to -6°; p < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of femoral retroversion in hips with SCFE (58% [95% CI 47% to 69%]; p < 0.001) than on the contralateral side (29% [95% CI 19% to 39%]). These differences between hips with SCFE and the contralateral side were higher and ranged from -17° ± 11° (95% CI -20° to -15°; p < 0.001) based on the method of Tomczak et al. to -22° ± 13° (95% CI -25° to -19°; p < 0.001) according to the method of Murphy et al. The mean overall femoral version angles increased for hips with SCFE using more-distal landmarks compared with more-proximal landmarks. The prevalence of femoral retroversion was higher in hips with SCFE for the proximal methods of Lee et al. and Reikerås et al. (91% [95% CI 85% to 97%] and 84% [95% CI 76% to 92%], respectively) than for the distal measurement methods of Tomczak et al. and Murphy et al. (47% [95% CI 36% to 58%] and 60% [95% CI 49% to 71%], respectively [all p < 0.001]). We detected mean differences ranging from -19° to 4° (all p < 0.005) for 8 of 10 pairwise comparisons in hips with SCFE. Among these, the greatest differences were between the most-proximal methods and the more-distal methods, with a mean difference of -19° ± 7° (95% CI -21° to -18°; p < 0.001), comparing the methods of Lee et al. and Tomczak et al. In hips with SCFE, we found excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.80) for intraobserver reproducibility (reader 1, ICC 0.93 to 0.96) and interobserver reliability (ICC 0.95 to 0.98) for all five measurement methods. Analogously, we found excellent agreement (ICC > 0.80) for intraobserver reproducibility (reader 1, range 0.91 to 0.96) and interobserver reliability (range 0.89 to 0.98) for all five measurement methods in healthy contralateral hips., Conclusion: We showed that femoral neck version is asymmetrically decreased in unilateral SCFE, and that differences increase when including the femoral head's center. Thus, to assess the full extent of an SCFE deformity, femoral version measurements should consider the position of the displaced epiphysis. The prevalence of femoral retroversion was high in patients with SCFE and increased when using proximal anatomic landmarks. Since the range of femoral version angles was wide, femoral version cannot be predicted in a given hip and must be assessed individually. Based on these findings, we believe it is worthwhile to add evaluation of femoral version to the diagnostic workup of children with SCFE. Doing so may better inform surgeons as they contemplate when to use isolated offset correction or to perform an additional femoral osteotomy for SCFE correction based on the severity of the slip and the rotational deformity. To facilitate communication among physicians and for the design of future studies, we recommend consistently reporting the applied measurement technique., Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background Assessment of femoral torsion at preoperative hip imaging is commonly recommended. However, it is unclear whether MRI is as accurate as CT and how different methods affect femoral torsion measurements. Purpose To compare MRI- and CT-based assessment of femoral torsion by using four commonly used measurement methods in terms of agreement, reproducibility, and reliability and to compare femoral torsion angles between the four different measurement methods. Materials and Methods This retrospective study evaluated patients with hip pain who underwent CT and 3-T MRI of the hip including sequences of the pelvis and distal condyles between May 2017 and June 2018. The four measurement methods differed regarding the landmark levels for the proximal femoral reference axis and included measurements at the level of the greater trochanter, femoral neck, base of the femoral neck, and level of the lesser trochanter. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated, and Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Results Forty-five patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 19 years ± 5; 27 female) and 57 hips were evaluated. Inter- and intrarater reliability were excellent for each of the four CT- and MRI-based measurement methods (ICC range, 0.97-0.99). Mean difference between CT- and MRI-based measurement ranged from 0.3° ± 3.4 ( P = .58) to 2.1° ± 4.1 ( P < .001). Differences between CT and MRI were within the corresponding ICC variation for all four measurement methods. Mean torsion angles were greater by 17.6° for CT and 18.7° for MRI (all P < .001) between the most proximal to the most distal measurement methods. Conclusion MRI- and CT-based femoral torsion measurements showed high agreement and comparable reliability and reproducibility but were dependent on the level of selected landmarks used to define the proximal reference axis. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Zoga in this issue.

Background: Torsional deformities of the femur include femoral retrotorsion and increased femoral torsion, which are possible causes for hip pain and osteoarthritis. For patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), torsional deformities of the femur represent an additional cause of FAI in addition to cam and pincer-type FAI., Objectives: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of measurement techniques and normal values of femoral torsion. The clinical presentation, possible combinations and surgical therapy of patients with torsional deformities of the femur will be discussed., Methods: For measurement of femoral torsion, CT or MRI represent the method of choice. The various definitions should be taken into account, because they can lead to differing values and misdiagnosis. This is the case especially for patients with high femoral torsion. Dynamic 3D impingement simulation using 3D-CT can help to differentiate between intra und extra-articular FAI., Results and Discussion: Femoral retrotorsion (< 5°) can lead to anterior intra- and extraarticular (subspine) FAI, between the anterior iliac inferior spine (AIIS) and the proximal femur. Increased femoral torsion (> 35°) can lead to posterior intra- and extra-articular ischiofemoral FAI, between the lesser/greater trochanter and the ischial tuberosity. During clinical examination, a patient with femoral retrotorsion exhibits loss of internal rotation and a positive anterior impingement test. Hips with increased femoral torsion show high internal rotation if examined in prone position and have a positive FABER and posterior impingement test. During surgical therapy for patients with torsional deformities, intra and extra-articular causes for FAI in addition to cam and pincer-deformities should be considered. In addition to hip arthroscopy and surgical hip dislocation, also femoral rotational or derotational osteotomies should be evaluated during surgical planning of these patients.

Objective: In ovine hips chondrolabral damage as seen in cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) can be induced via an intertrochanteric varus osteotomy. However, it is yet to proven whether the observed cartilage damage is caused by a dynamic cam type impingement. Thus we asked, (1) whether actual cartilage damage observed after FAI induction in ovine hips occurs at the predicted, computed zone of FAI; (2) whether the extent of cartilage damage increases with ambulation time in this animal model?, Design: In this experimental, controlled, comparative study 20 sheep underwent unilateral FAI induction through an intertrochanteric varus osteotomy. Preoperatively sheep underwent computed tomography to generate three-dimensional models of the osseous pelvis and femur. The models were used to predict impingement zones before and after simulated varus osteotomy using range of motion (ROM) analysis. Sheep were sacrificed after 14-40 weeks of ambulation. At sacrifice cartilage was inspected and (1) location of actual damage and computed impingement zones were compared; (2) Cartilage damage was compared between short- and long ambulation groups., Results: (1) The average location and the extent of peripheral and central cartilage lesions did not differ with the computed impingement zones (all P > 0.05). (2) Grades of central, posterior cartilage damage were more severe in the long-compared to the short ambulation group (2.2 ± 1.8 vs 0.4 ± 0.5; P = 0.030)., Conclusions: In this experimental ovine FAI model the surgical induction of an osseous impingement conflict between the femur and acetabulum causes cartilage damage at the zone of simulated FAI., (Copyright © 2019 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Correct quantification of femoral torsion is crucial to diagnose torsional deformities, make an indication for surgical treatment, or plan the amount of correction. However, no clear evaluation of different femoral torsion measurement methods for hips with excessive torsion has been performed to date., Questions/purposes: (1) How does CT-based measurement of femoral torsion differ among five commonly used measurement methods? (2) Do differences in femoral torsion among measurement methods increase in hips with excessive femoral torsion? (3) What is the reliability and reproducibility of each of the five torsion measurement methods?, Methods: Between March and August 2016, we saw 86 new patients (95 hips) with hip pain and physical findings suggestive for femoroacetabular impingement at our outpatient tertiary clinic. Of those, 56 patients (62 hips) had a pelvic CT scan including the distal femur for measurement of femoral torsion. We excluded seven patients (seven hips) with previous hip surgery, two patients (two hips) with sequelae of Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, and one patient (one hip) with a posttraumatic deformity. This resulted in 46 patients (52 hips) in the final study group with a mean age of 28 ± 9 years (range, 17-51 years) and 27 female patients (59%). Torsion was compared among five commonly used assessment measures, those of Lee et al., Reikerås et al., Jarrett et al., Tomczak et al., and Murphy et al. They differed regarding the level of the anatomic landmark for the proximal femoral neck axis; the method of Lee had the most proximal definition followed by the methods of Reikerås, Jarrett, and Tomczak at the base of the femoral neck and the method of Murphy with the most distal definition at the level of the lesser trochanter. The definition of the femoral head center and of the distal reference was consistent for all five measurement methods. We used the method described by Murphy et al. as our baseline measurement method for femoral torsion because it reportedly most closely reflects true anatomic femoral torsion. With this method we found a mean femoral torsion of 28 ± 13°. Mean values of femoral torsion were compared among the five methods using multivariate analysis of variance. All differences between two of the measurement methods were plotted over the entire range of femoral torsion to evaluate a possible increase in hips with excessive femoral torsion. All measurements were performed by two blinded orthopaedic residents (FS, TDL) at two different occasions to measure intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)., Results: We found increasing values for femoral torsion using measurement methods with a more distal definition of the proximal femoral neck axis: Lee et al. (most proximal definition: 11° ± 11°), Reikerås et al. (15° ± 11°), Jarrett et al. (19° ± 11°), Tomczak et al. (25° ± 12°), and Murphy et al. (most distal definition: 28° ± 13°). The most pronounced difference was found for the comparison between the methods of Lee et al. and Murphy et al. with a mean difference of 17° ± 5° (95% confidence interval, 16°-19°; p < 0.001). For six of 10 possible pairwise comparisons, the difference between two methods increased with increasing femoral torsion and decreased with decreasing femoral torsion. We observed a fair-to-strong linear correlation (R range, 0.306-0.622; all p values < 0.05) for any method compared with the Murphy method and for the Reikerås and Jarrett methods when compared with the Tomczak method. For example, a hip with 10° of femoral antetorsion according Murphy had a torsion of 1° according to Reikerås, which corresponds to a difference of 9°. This difference increased to 20° in hips with excessive torsion; for example, a hip with 60° of torsion according to Murphy had 40° of torsion according to Reikerås. All five methods for measuring femoral torsion showed excellent agreement for both intraobserver reproducibility (ICC, 0.905-0.973) and interobserver reliability (ICC, 0.938-0.969)., Conclusions: Because the quantification of femoral torsion in hips with excessive femoral torsion differs considerably among measurement methods, it is crucial to state the applied methods when reporting femoral torsion and to be consistent regarding the used measurement method. These differences have to be considered for surgical decision-making and planning the degree of correction. Neglecting the differences among measurement methods to quantify femoral torsion can potentially lead to misdiagnosis and surgical planning errors., Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic study.

Background: Radial 2D MRI scans of the hip are routinely used for the diagnosis of the cam type of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and of avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head, both considered causes of hip joint osteoarthritis in young and active patients. A method for automated and accurate segmentation of the proximal femur from radial MRI scans could be very useful in both clinical routine and biomechanical studies. However, to our knowledge, no such method has been published before., Purpose: The aims of this study are the development of a system for the segmentation of the proximal femur from radial MRI scans and the reconstruction of its 3D model that can be used for diagnosis and planning of hip-preserving surgery., Methods: The proposed system relies on: (a) a random forest classifier and (b) the registration of a 3D template mesh of the femur to the radial slices based on a physically based deformable model. The input to the system are the radial slices and the manually specified positions of three landmarks. Our dataset consists of the radial MRI scans of 25 patients symptomatic of FAI or AVN and accompanying manual segmentation of the femur, treated as the ground truth., Results: The achieved segmentation of the proximal femur has an average Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 96.37 ± 1.55%, an average symmetric mean absolute distance (SMAD) of 0.94 ± 0.39 mm and an average Hausdorff distance of 2.37 ± 1.14 mm. In the femoral head subregion, the average SMAD is 0.64 ± 0.18 mm and the average Hausdorff distance is 1.41 ± 0.56 mm., Conclusions: We validated a semiautomated method for the segmentation of the proximal femur from radial MR scans. A 3D model of the proximal femur is also reconstructed, which can be used for the planning of hip-preserving surgery.

Background: Variations in femoral and acetabular version are becoming increasingly recognized as contributing factors to the development of hip pain in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and hip dysplasia. It is still unknown what the true prevalence of these rotational abnormalities is in this patient population., Purpose: To determine (1) the prevalence of femoral version abnormalities in symptomatic hips with FAI and hip dysplasia, (2) the prevalence of combined abnormalities of femoral and acetabular version in these patients, and (3) which specific hip morphologies are associated with abnormalities of femoral version., Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: A total of 462 symptomatic patients (538 hips) were included who had hip pain attributed to FAI or hip dysplasia and who presented to our tertiary referral center for hip preservation surgery between 2011 and 2015. We retrospectively examined femoral and acetabular version among 11 subgroups with predefined hip morphologies and compared findings with a control group. The allocation to each subgroup was based on morphologic reference values for femoral head coverage, lateral center edge angle, alpha angle, and neck-shaft angle calculated on plain radiographs., Results: Of the 538 hips included, 52% were found to have abnormal femoral version; severe abnormalities were found in 17%. Severely decreased femoral version (<0°) was found in 5%; moderately decreased femoral version (0°-10°), in 17%; moderately increased femoral version (26°-35°), in 18%; and severely increased femoral version (>35°), in 12%. The most frequent abnormal combination was increased femoral version combined with normal acetabular version (22%). We found significantly lower mean femoral version for the cam-type FAI group (15°) and significantly higher mean femoral version for the Perthes hips (32°; ie, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease) as compared with the control group (22°). The mean femoral version of the study group was 19°; for male patients, 15°; and for female patients, 22°., Conclusion: Abnormalities in femoral version are highly prevalent in patients with hip pain who are eligible for hip preservation surgery, and severe abnormalities are prevalent in 1 of 6 patients (17%). Based on these results, the evaluation of young patients with hip pain should always include an assessment of femoral version and acetabular version to best decide what treatment approach should be undertaken to optimize outcomes.

Background: Delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) allows an objective, noninvasive, and longitudinal quantification of biochemical cartilage properties. Although dGEMRIC has been used to monitor the course of cartilage degeneration after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for correction of hip dysplasia, such longitudinal data are currently lacking for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI)., Questions/purposes: (1) How does the mean acetabular and femoral dGEMRIC index change after surgery for FAI at 1-year followup compared with a similar group of patients with FAI treated without surgery? (2) Does the regional distribution of the acetabular and femoral dGEMRIC index change for the two groups over time? (3) Is there a correlation between the baseline dGEMRIC index and the change of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1-year followup? (4) Among those treated surgically, can dGEMRIC indices distinguish between intact and degenerated cartilage?, Methods: We performed a prospective, comparative, nonrandomized, longitudinal study. At the time of enrollment, the patients' decision whether to undergo surgery or choose nonoperative treatment was not made yet. Thirty-nine patients (40 hips) who underwent either joint-preserving surgery for FAI (20 hips) or nonoperative treatment (20 hips) were included. The two groups did not differ regarding Tönnis osteoarthritis score, preoperative PROMs, or baseline dGEMRIC indices. There were more women (60% versus 30%, p = 0.003) in the nonoperative group and patients were older (36 ± 8 years versus 30 ± 8 years, p = 0.026) and had lower alpha angles (65° ± 10° versus 73° ± 12°, p = 0.022) compared with the operative group. We used a 3.0-T scanner and a three-dimensional dual flip-angle gradient-echo technique for the dGEMRIC technique for the baseline and the 1-year followup measurements. dGEMRIC indices of femoral and acetabular cartilage were measured separately on the initial and followup radial dGEMRIC reformats in direct comparison with morphologic radial images. Regions of interest were placed manually peripherally and centrally within the cartilage based on anatomic landmarks at the clockface positions. The WOMAC, the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the modified Harris hip score were used as PROMs. Among those treated surgically, the intraoperative damage according to the Beck grading was recorded and compared with the baseline dGEMRIC indices., Results: Although both the operative and the nonoperative groups experienced decreased dGEMRIC indices, the declines were more pronounced in the operative group (-96 ± 112 ms versus -16 ± 101 ms on the acetabular side and -96 ± 123 ms versus -21 ± 83 ms on the femoral side in the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy and surgical hip dislocation experienced decreased dGEMRIC indices; the decline in femoral dGEMRIC indices was more pronounced in hips after surgical hip dislocation (-120 ± 137 ms versus -61 ± 89 ms, p = 0.002). In the operative group a decline in dGEMRIC indices was observed in 43 of 44 regions over time. In the nonoperative group a decline in dGEMRIC indices was observed in four of 44 regions over time. The strongest correlation among patients treated surgically was found between the change in WOMAC and baseline dGEMRIC indices for the entire joint (R = 0.788, p < 0.001). Among those treated nonoperatively, no correlation between baseline dGEMRIC indices and change in PROMs was found. In the posterosuperior quadrant, the dGEMRIC index was higher for patients with intact cartilage compared with hips with chondral lesions (592 ± 203 ms versus 444 ± 205 ms, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: We found a decline in acetabular, femoral, and regional dGEMRIC indices for the surgically treated group at 1-year followup despite an improvement in all PROMs. We observed a similar but less pronounced decrease in the dGEMRIC index in symptomatic patients without surgical treatment indicating continuous cartilage degeneration. Although treatment of FAI is intended to alter the forces acting across the hip by eliminating impingement, its effects on cartilage biology are not clear. dGEMRIC provides a noninvasive method of assessing these effects. Longer term studies will be needed to determine whether the matrix changes of the bradytrophic cartilage seen here are permanent or clinically important., Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study.