header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

DO ANATOMICAL PARAMETERS OF CAM FAI INFLUENCE HIP JOINT MECHANICS DURING LEVEL WALKING?

Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) and Canadian Orthopaedic Research Society (CORS) Annual Meeting, June 2016; PART 1.



Abstract

With the growing number of individuals with asymptomatic cam-type deformities, elevated alpha angles alone do not always explain clinical signs of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Differences in additional anatomical parameters may affect hip joint mechanics, altering the pathomechanical process resulting in symptomatic FAI. The purpose was to examine the association between anatomical hip joint parameters and kinematics and kinetics variables, during level walking.

Fifty participants (m = 46, f = 4; age = 34 ± 7 years; BMI = 26 ± 4 kg/m²) underwent CT imaging and were diagnosed as either: symptomatic (15), if they showed a cam deformity and clinical signs; asymptomatic (19), if they showed a cam deformity, but no clinical signs; or control (16), if they showed no cam deformity and no clinical signs. Each participant's CT data was measured for: axial and radial alpha angles, femoral head-neck offset, femoral neck-shaft angle, medial proximal femoral angle, femoral torsion, acetabular version, and centre-edge angle. Participants performed level walking trials, which were recorded using a ten-camera motion capture system (Vicon MX-13, Oxford, UK) and two force plates (Bertec FP4060–08, Columbus, OH, USA). Peak sagittal and frontal hip joint angles, range of motion, and moments were calculated using a custom programming script (MATLAB R2015b, Natick, MA, USA). A one-way, between groups ANOVA examined differences among kinematics and kinetics variables (α = 0.05), using statistics software (IBM SPSS v.23, Armonk, NY, USA); while a stepwise multiple regression analysis examined associations between anatomical parameters and kinematics and kinetics variables.

No significant differences in kinematics were observed between groups. The symptomatic group demonstrated lower peak hip abduction moments (0.12 ± 0.08 Nm/kg) than the control group (0.22 ± 0.10 Nm/kg, p = 0.01). Sagittal hip range of motion showed a moderate, negative correlation with radial alpha angle (r = −0.33, p = 0.02), while peak hip abduction moment correlated with femoral neck-shaft angle (r = 0.36, p = 0.009) and negatively with femoral torsion (r = −0.36, p = 0.009). With peak hip abduction moment in the stepwise regression analysis, femoral torsion accounted for a variance of 13.3% (F(1, 48) = 7.38; p = 0.009), while together with femoral neck-shaft angle accounted for a total variance of 20.4% (R² change = 0.07, F(2, 47) = 6.01; p = 0.047).

Although elevated radial alpha angles may have limited sagittal range of motion, the cam deformity parameters did not affect joint moments. Femoral neck-shaft angle and femoral torsion were significantly associated with peak hip abduction moment, suggesting that the insertion location of the abductor affects muscle's length and its resultant force vector. A varus neck angle, combined with severe femoral torsion, may ultimately influence muscle moment arms and hip mechanics in individuals with cam FAI.


Email: