Increased Hip Stresses Resulting From a Cam Deformity and Decreased Femoral Neck-Shaft Angle During Level Walking

Abstract

Background It is still unclear why many individuals with a cam morphology of the hip do not experience pain. It was recently reported that a decreased femoral neck-shaft angle may also be associated with hip symptoms. However, the effects that different femoral neck-shaft angles have on hip stresses in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals with cam morphology remain unclear.Questions/purposes We examined the effects of the cam morphology and femoral neck-shaft angle on hip stresses during walking by asking: (1) Are there differences in hip stress characteristics among symptomatic patients with cam morphology, asymptomatic individuals with cam morphology, and individuals without cam morphology? (2) What are the effects of high and low femoral neck-shaft angles on hip stresses? Methods Six participants were selected, from a larger cohort, and their cam morphology and femoral neck-shaft angle parameters were measured from CT data. Two participants were included in one of three groups: (1) symptomatic with cam morphology; (2) asymptomatic with a cam morphology; and (3) asymptomatic control with no cam morphology with one participant having the highest femoral neck-shaft angle and the other participant having the lowest in each subgroup. Subject-specific finite element models were reconstructed and simulated during the stance phase, near pushoff, to examine maximum shear stresses on the acetabular cartilage and labrum. Results The symptomatic group with cam morphology indicated high peak stresses (6.3-9.5 MPa) compared with the asymptomatic (5.9-7.0 MPa) and control groups (3.8-4.0 MPa). Differences in femoral neck-shaft angle influenced both symptomatic and asymptomatic groups; participants with the lowest femoral neck-shaft angles had higher peak stresses in their respective subgroups. There were no differences among control models. Conclusions Our study suggests that the hips of individuals with a cam morphology and varus femoral neck angle may be subjected to higher mechanical stresses than those with a normal femoral neck angle. Clinical Relevance Individuals with a cam morphology and decreased femoral neck-shaft angle are likely to experience severe hip stresses. Although asymptomatic

Hip Joint Capsular Anatomy, Mechanics, and Surgical Management

“…The study quantified the contribution of the cam deformity, which accounted for 21% to 27% of the torsional loading of the intact hip in deep flexion and internal rotation (Fig. 6), where the specimens indicated secondary at-risk parameters of smaller femoral neck-shaft [67][68][69][70][71] and higher spinopelvic incidence angles [72][73][74] . Capsular repairs restrained external rotation during deep flexion and were ineffective in other testing positions, partly because of the inherently large native head that maintained joint stability and partly because the cam deformities were not overresected (i.e., no proximal concavity or "cookie bite").…”

Imaging Methodology for Hip Preservation: Techniques, Parameters, and Thresholds

“…A potential solution to this problem is to develop a multidimensional reference region or multivariate approaches. 53,54 In fact, when quantitative parameter results for both asymptomatic and individuals with FAIS are available, various approaches can be used to set decision limits for these parameters by examining the test sensitivity and specificity at various test threshold settings. Such thresholds are best set by the use of receiver operating character-istic (ROC) analysis.…”

Patient‐Specific Functional Analysis: The Key to the Next Revolution Towards the Treatment of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

“…Recent work incorporating patient‐specific models and/or external measurements of mechanics have the potential to provide the most accurate predictions of joint mechanics parameters. Subject‐specific models driven by gait analysis have been applied in the hip and knee . Recent developments in MR, CT, and biplanar radiography/fluoroscopy all have potential for more direct measurements of quantities of interest, and when used in conjunction with patient‐specific movement analysis, can provide important insight into the individual anatomy and mechanics to improve and optimize treatment.…”