Introduction. Ectopic ossification (EO) at the acetabular rim has been suggested to be associated with pincer impingement and to lead to ossification of the labrum. However, this has never been substantiated with histological, radiographic and MRI findings in large cohorts of patients. We hypothesized that it is more a bone apposition of the acetabular rim and that it occurs more frequently in coxa profunda (CP) hips. Materials and Methods. In the first part, a cohort of 20 hips with this suspected ectopic rim ossification (EO) pattern were identified. The radiographic features that could be associated with this ossification pattern were described and evaluated by a histologic examination of intra-operative samples taken from the rim trimming. In the second part, we assessed the prevalence of this ectopic ossification process in a cohort of 203 patients treated for FAI. Results. Histologic examination revealed that new acetabular bone formation was either overgrowing the non-ossified labrum or moving it away from the native rim. Radiologically, this was associated with an “indentation sign” and/or a “double line sign”. There were no specimens that had shown any evidence of labral ossification. EO was found in 26 hips (18%) of the second cohort. Twenty of 26 hips (77%) with EO had CP morphology and 29% of CP hips had EO signs. In contrast, only 6 non-profunda hips (8%) were associated with EO. There was a high correlation between XR and MRI findings as >80% of XR findings were confirmed on MRI. Sixty-nine hips had CP morphology. The double line sign (N = 13), the indentation sign (N = 12) and a prominent lateral rim (N = 11) were found. Hips with an EO pattern were found in patients that were significantly older than those without EO (p = 0.01). The acetabular characteristics of the EO groups were not significantly different from the CP hips without EO. The femoral characteristics were significantly different between groups with lower neck shaft angles (128° vs 134°;p = 0,0002) and shorter femoral necks lengths (62mm vs 65mm; p = 0,04)) in the EO group. The mean Tonnis classification was not significantly different (p = 0,18). In addition, the mean acetabular