Acute Hip Pain

Variant: 1 Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography hip	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US hip	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI hip without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan hip	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI hip without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT hip without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US hip	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan hip	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT hip without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI hip without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US hip	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan hip	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography hip	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US hip	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI hip without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan hip	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 5 Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI hip without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
US hip	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan hip	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT hip without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Panel Members

Roger J. Bartolotta, MD^a; Alice S. Ha, MD, MS^b; Cyrus P. Bateni, MD^c; Karen C. Chen, MD^d; Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy, MD^e; Jonathan Flug, MD, MBA^f; Christian S. Geannette, MD^g; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MD^h; Olga Laur, MDⁱ; Robin B. Levenson, MD^j; Nadia Mujahid, MD^k; Sreelakshmi Panginikkod, MD^l; Gary M. Plant, MD^m; Benjamin E. Plotkin, MDⁿ; Richard D. Shih, MD^o; Daniel E. Wessell, MD, PhD^p.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.
A. Bone scan hip

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.
B. CT hip with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.
C. CT hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.
D. CT hip without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.
E. MRI hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.
F. MRI hip without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.
G. Radiography hip

Variant 1: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Initial imaging.
H. US hip

Variant 2: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan hip

Variant 2: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT hip with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT hip without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. MRI hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. MRI hip without IV contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect fracture. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. US hip

Variant 3: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan hip

Variant 3: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.
B. CT hip with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.
C. CT hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.
D. CT hip without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.
E. MRI hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.
F. MRI hip without IV contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Radiographs positive for hip fracture. Next imaging study.
G. US hip

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.
A. Bone scan hip

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.
B. CT hip with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.
C. CT hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.
D. CT hip without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.
E. MRI hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.
F. MRI hip without IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.
G. Radiography hip

Variant 4: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Post reduction of hip dislocation. Follow-up imaging.
H. US hip

Variant 5: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.

Variant 5: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan hip

Variant 5: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
B. CT hip with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
C. CT hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
D. CT hip without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
E. MRI hip without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
F. MRI hip without IV contrast

Variant 5: Adult. Acute hip pain, traumatic. Suspect tendon, muscle, or ligament injury. Radiographs negative or indeterminate. Next imaging study.
G. US hip

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Brauer CA, Coca-Perraillon M, Cutler DM, Rosen AB. Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1573-1579.
2.	Kani KK, Porrino JA, Mulcahy H, Chew FS. Fragility fractures of the proximal femur: review and update for radiologists. [Review]. Skeletal Radiology. 48(1):29-45, 2019 Jan.
3.	Khan SK, Kalra S, Khanna A, Thiruvengada MM, Parker MJ. Timing of surgery for hip fractures: a systematic review of 52 published studies involving 291,413 patients. Injury. 2009;40(7):692-697.
4.	Lefaivre KA, Macadam SA, Davidson DJ, Gandhi R, Chan H, Broekhuyse HM. Length of stay, mortality, morbidity and delay to surgery in hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(7):922-927.
5.	Bretherton CP, Parker MJ. Early surgery for patients with a fracture of the hip decreases 30-day mortality. Bone Joint J. 97-B(1):104-8, 2015 Jan.
6.	Nyholm AM, Gromov K, Palm H, et al. Time to Surgery Is Associated with Thirty-Day and Ninety-Day Mortality After Proximal Femoral Fracture: A Retrospective Observational Study on Prospectively Collected Data from the Danish Fracture Database Collaborators. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 97(16):1333-9, 2015 Aug 19.
7.	Bartolotta RJ, Belfi LM, Ha AS. Breaking Down Fractures of the Pelvis and Hip. Semin Roentgenol 2021;56:39-46.
8.	Mandell JC, Marshall RA, Weaver MJ, Harris MB, Sodickson AD, Khurana B. Traumatic Hip Dislocation: What the Orthopedic Surgeon Wants to Know. [Review]. Radiographics. 37(7):2181-2201, 2017 Nov-Dec.
9.	Walker MR, El Naga AN, Atassi OH, Perkins CH, Mitchell SA. Effect of initial emergency room imaging choice on time to hip reduction and repeat imaging. Injury. 50(3):686-689, 2019 Mar.
10.	Weissman BN, Palestro CJ, Fox MG, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S413-S32.
11.	Jawetz ST, Fox MG, Blankenbaker DG, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Hip Pain: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S33-S48.
12.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Stress (Fatigue-Insufficiency) Fracture Including Sacrum Excluding Other Vertebrae. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69435/Narrative/
13.	Pierce JL, Perry MT, Wessell DE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Osteomyelitis, Septic Arthritis, or Soft Tissue Infection (Excluding Spine and Diabetic Foot): 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2022;19:S473-S87.
14.	Stephenson JW, Davis KW. Imaging of traumatic injuries to the hip. [Review]. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 17(3):306-15, 2013 Jul.
15.	Harding J, Chesser TJ, Bradley M. The Bristol hip view: its role in the diagnosis and surgical planning and occult fracture diagnosis for proximal femoral fractures. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013:703783, 2013.
16.	Khurana B, Mandell JC, Rocha TC, et al. Internal Rotation Traction Radiograph Improves Proximal Femoral Fracture Classification Accuracy and Agreement. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 211(2):409-415, 2018 08.
17.	Garcia-Serrano MC, Garcia-Guerrero LF, Gomez-Gelvez A, Pinzon-Rendon AA. Diagnostic imaging concordance study: Are traction radiographs necessary in a hip fracture?. Injury. 52(6):1445-1449, 2021 Jun.
18.	Alabousi M, Gauthier ID, Li N, et al. Multi-detector CT for suspected hip fragility fractures: A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. Emergency Radiology. 26(5):549-556, 2019 Oct.
19.	Davidson A, Silver N, Cohen D, et al. Justifying CT prior to MRI in cases of suspected occult hip fracture. A proposed diagnostic protocol. Injury. 52(6):1429-1433, 2021 Jun.
20.	Haj-Mirzaian A, Eng J, Khorasani R, et al. Use of Advanced Imaging for Radiographically Occult Hip Fracture in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 296(3):521-531, 2020 09.
21.	Kellock TT, Khurana B, Mandell JC. Diagnostic Performance of CT for Occult Proximal Femoral Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 213(6):1324-1330, 2019 12.
22.	Lanotte SJ, Larbi A, Michoux N, et al. Value of CT to detect radiographically occult injuries of the proximal femur in elderly patients after low-energy trauma: determination of non-inferiority margins of CT in comparison with MRI. European Radiology. 30(2):1113-1126, 2020 Feb.
23.	Foex BA, Russell A. BET 2: CT versus MRI for occult hip fractures. [Review]. Emergency Medicine Journal. 35(10):645-647, 2018 Oct.
24.	Haims AH, Wang A, Yoo BJ, Porrino J. Negative predictive value of CT for occult fractures of the hip and pelvis with imaging follow-up. Emergency Radiology. 28(2):259-264, 2021 Apr.
25.	Gatt T, Cutajar D, Borg L, Giordmaina R. The Necessity of CT Hip Scans in the Investigation of Occult Hip Fractures and Their Effect on Patient Management. Advances in Orthopaedics. 2021:8118147, 2021.
26.	Baffour FI, Glazebrook KN, Morris JM, et al. Clinical utility of virtual noncalcium dual-energy CT in imaging of the pelvis and hip. [Review]. Skeletal Radiology. 48(12):1833-1842, 2019 Dec.
27.	Kellock TT, Nicolaou S, Kim SSY, et al. Detection of Bone Marrow Edema in Nondisplaced Hip Fractures: Utility of a Virtual Noncalcium Dual-Energy CT Application. Radiology. 284(3):798-805, 2017 09.
28.	Rogers NB, Hartline BE, Achor TS, et al. Improving the Diagnosis of Ipsilateral Femoral Neck and Shaft Fractures: A New Imaging Protocol. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - American Volume. 102(4):309-314, 2020 Feb 19.
29.	Khurana B, Okanobo H, Ossiani M, Ledbetter S, Al Dulaimy K, Sodickson A. Abbreviated MRI for patients presenting to the emergency department with hip pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(6):W581-588.
30.	Sun EX, Mandell JC, Weaver MJ, Kimbrell V, Harris MB, Khurana B. Clinical utility of a focused hip MRI for assessing suspected hip fracture in the emergency department. Emergency Radiology. 28(2):317-325, 2021 Apr.
31.	Wilson MP, Nobbee D, Murad MH, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Limited MRI Protocols for Detecting Radiographically Occult Hip Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. [Review]. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 215(3):559-567, 2020 09.
32.	Cohen A, Li T, Greco J, et al. Hip effusions or iliopsoas hematomas on ultrasound in identifying hip fractures in the emergency department. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 64:129-136, 2023 02.
33.	Tsukamoto H, Kijima H, Saito K, Saito H, Miyakoshi N. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for occult femoral neck fracture. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics & Trauma. 36:102087, 2023 Jan.
34.	Zamora T, Klaber I, Ananias J, et al. The influence of the CT scan in the evaluation and treatment of nondisplaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery. 27(2):2309499019836160, 2019 May-Aug.
35.	Hardy J, Collin C, Mathieu PA, Vergnenegre G, Charissoux JL, Marcheix PS. Is non-operative treatment still relevant for Garden Type I fractures in elderly patients? The femoral neck impaction angle as a new CT parameter for determining the indications of non-operative treatment. Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research. 105(3):479-483, 2019 05.
36.	Iguchi M, Takahashi T, Matsumura T, et al. Addition of 3D-CT evaluation to radiographic images and effect on diagnostic reliability of current 2018 AO/OTA classification of femoral trochanteric fractures. Injury. 52(11):3363-3368, 2021 Nov.
37.	Wada K, Mikami H, Amari R, Toki S, Takai M, Sairyo K. A novel three-dimensional classification system for intertrochanteric fractures based on computed tomography findings. Journal of Medical Investigation. 66(3.4):362-366, 2019.
38.	Wada K, Mikami H, Toki S, Amari R, Takai M, Sairyo K. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of a three-dimensional classification system for intertrochanteric fracture using computed tomography. Injury. 51(11):2682-2685, 2020 Nov.
39.	Noh J, Lee KH, Jung S, Hwang S. The Frequency of Occult Intertrochanteric Fractures among Individuals with Isolated Greater Trochanteric Fractures. Hip & Pelvis. 31(1):23-32, 2019 Mar.
40.	Walsh PJ, Farooq M, Walz DM. Occult fracture propagation in patients with isolated greater trochanteric fractures: patterns and management. Skeletal Radiology. 51(7):1391-1398, 2022 Jul.
41.	Kent WT, Whitchurch T, Siow M, et al. Greater trochanteric fractures with lntertrochanteric extension identified on MRI: What is the rate of displacement when treated nonoperatively?. Injury. 51(11):2648-2651, 2020 Nov.
42.	Mandell JC, Marshall RA, Banffy MB, Khurana B, Weaver MJ. Arthroscopy After Traumatic Hip Dislocation: A Systematic Review of Intra-articular Findings, Correlation With Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography, Treatments, and Outcomes. Arthroscopy. 34(3):917-927, 2018 03.
43.	Mullis BH, Dahners LE. Hip arthroscopy to remove loose bodies after traumatic dislocation. J Orthop Trauma 2006;20:22-6.
44.	Chona DV, Minetos PD, LaPrade CM, et al. Hip Dislocation and Subluxation in Athletes: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 50(10):2834-2841, 2022 08.
45.	Chung CB, Robertson JE, Cho GJ, Vaughan LM, Copp SN, Resnick D. Gluteus medius tendon tears and avulsive injuries in elderly women: imaging findings in six patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Aug;173(2):351-3.
46.	Cvitanic O, Henzie G, Skezas N, Lyons J, Minter J. MRI diagnosis of tears of the hip abductor tendons (gluteus medius and gluteus minimus). AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:137-43.
47.	Lequesne M, Djian P, Vuillemin V, Mathieu P. Prospective study of refractory greater trochanter pain syndrome. MRI findings of gluteal tendon tears seen at surgery. Clinical and MRI results of tendon repair. Joint Bone Spine 2008;75:458-64.
48.	Lindner D, Shohat N, Botser I, Agar G, Domb BG. Clinical presentation and imaging results of patients with symptomatic gluteus medius tears. J Hip Preserv Surg 2015;2:310-5.
49.	Makridis KG, Lequesne M, Bard H, Djian P. Clinical and MRI results in 67 patients operated for gluteus medius and minimus tendon tears with a median follow-up of 4.6 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014;100:849-53.
50.	Zhu MF, Musson DS, Cornish J, Young SW, Munro JT. Hip abductor tendon tears: where are we now?. [Review]. Hip International. 30(5):500-512, 2020 Sep.
51.	Westacott DJ, Minns JI, Foguet P. The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in gluteal tendon tears--a systematic review. Hip Int 2011;21:637-45.
52.	Allahabadi S, Salazar LM, Obioha OA, Fenn TW, Chahla J, Nho SJ. Hamstring Injuries: A Current Concepts Review: Evaluation, Nonoperative Treatment, and Surgical Decision Making. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 3635465231164931, 2023 Apr 24.
53.	Arner JW, McClincy MP, Bradley JP. Hamstring Injuries in Athletes: Evidence-based Treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019;27:868-77.
54.	Koulouris G, Connell D. Evaluation of the hamstring muscle complex following acute injury. Skeletal Radiol 2003;32:582-9.
55.	Forlizzi JM, Nacca CR, Shah SS, et al. Acute Proximal Hamstring Tears Can be Defined Using an Imaged-Based Classification. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 4(2):e653-e659, 2022 Apr.
56.	Lungu E, Michaud J, Bureau NJ. US Assessment of Sports-related Hip Injuries. [Review]. Radiographics. 38(3):867-889, 2018 May-Jun.
57.	Boric I, Isaac A, Dalili D, Ouchinsky M, De Maeseneer M, Shahabpour M. Imaging of Articular and Extra-articular Sports Injuries of the Hip. [Review]. Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology. 23(3):e17-e36, 2019 Jun.
58.	Kho J, Azzopardi C, Davies AM, James SL, Botchu R. MRI assessment of anatomy and pathology of the iliofemoral ligament. [Review]. Clinical Radiology. 75(12):960.e17-960.e22, 2020 12.
59.	Fearon AM, Scarvell JM, Cook JL, Smith PN. Does ultrasound correlate with surgical or histologic findings in greater trochanteric pain syndrome? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:1838-44.
60.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
61.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.