Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 2, pp 430–436 | Cite as

The Otto Aufranc Award. On the Etiology of the Cam Deformity: A Cross-sectional Pediatric MRI Study

  • Sasha Carsen
  • Paul J. Moroz
  • Kawan Rakhra
  • Leanne M. Ward
  • Hal Dunlap
  • John A. Hay
  • R. Baxter Willis
  • Paul E. Beaulé
Symposium: 2013 Hip Society Proceedings

Abstract

Background

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has been recognized as a common cause of hip pain as well as a cause of hip arthritis, yet despite this, little is known about the etiology of the cam morphology or possible risk factors associated with its development.

Questions/purposes

The purposes of our study were to determine when the cam morphology associated with FAI developed in a cross-sectional cohort study of pediatric patients pre- and postphyseal closure using MRI and whether increased activity level during the period of physeal closure is associated with an increased likelihood that the cam deformity will develop.

Methods

Alpha angles were measured at the 3 o’clock (anterior head-neck junction) and 1:30 (anterosuperior head-neck junction) positions in both hips with a cam deformity defined as an alpha angle ≥ 50.5° at the 3 o’clock position. Forty-four volunteers (88 hips) were studied: 23 with open physes (12 females, mean age 9.7 years; 11 males, age 11.7 years) and 21 with closed physes (five females, age 15.2 years; 16 males, age 16.2 years). Daily activity level using the validated Habitual Activity Estimation Scale was compared for patients in whom cam morphology did and did not develop.

Results

None of the 23 (0%) patients prephyseal closure had cam morphology, whereas three of 21 (14%, p = 0.02; all males) postclosure had at least one hip with cam morphology. Daily activity level was higher (p = 0.02) for patients with the cam morphology (7.1 hours versus 2.9 hours). Mean alpha angles at the 3 o’clock head-neck position were 38° (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.2°–39.1°) in the open physes group and 42° (95% CI, 40.16°–43.90°) in the closed physes group; at the 1:30 head-neck position, they were 45° (95% CI, 44.0°–46.4°) in the open physes group and 50° (47.9°–52.3°) in the closed physes group.

Conclusions

The fact that cam morphology was present exclusively in the closed physeal group strongly supports its development during the period of physeal closure with increased activity level as a possible risk factor.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Slip Capital Femoral Epiphysis Alpha Angle Femoroacetabular Impingement Increase Activity Level Closed Physis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contributions of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Bone Health Research Team, Steve Anderson, and Kyle Kemp, who have been integral to the completion of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson M, Green WT, Messner MB. Growth and predictions of growth in the lower extremities. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1963;45:1–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaule PE, Zaragoza EJ, Motamedic K, Copelan N, Dorey J. Three-dimensional computed tomography of the hip in the assessment of femoro-acetabular impingement. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:1286–1292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1012–1018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dimeglio A. Growth in pediatric orthopaedics. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21:549–555.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fraitzl CR, Kafer W, Nelitz M, Reichel H. Radiological evidence of femoroacetabular impingement in mild slipped capital femoral epiphysis: a mean follow-up of 14.4 years after pinning in situ. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1592–1596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganz R, Parvizi J, Leunig M, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:112–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodman DA, Feighan JE, Smith AD, Latimer B, Buly RL, Cooperman DR. Sublinical slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1489–1497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gosvig KK, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Gebuhr P. The prevalence of cam-type deformity of the hip joint:a survey of 4151 subjects of the Copenhagen Osteoarthritis Study. Acta Radiol. 2008;49:436–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hack K, Diprimio G, Rakhra K, Beaule PE. Prevalence of CAM type femoroacetabular impingement in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2436–2444.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hay JA. Development and testing of the Habitual Activity Estimation Scale. In: Armstrong N, ed. Children and Exercise XIX. Volume 2006. 2nd ed. Exeter, UK: Singer Press; 1997:125–129.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hay JA, Cairney J. Development of the Habitual Activity Estimation Scale for clinical research: a systematic approach. Ped Exerc Sci. 2006;18:193–202.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ito K, Minka-II MA, Leunig S, Werlen S, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:171–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamegaya M, Saisu T, Nakamura J, Murakami R, Segawa Y, Wakou M. Drehmann sign and femoro-acetabular impingement in SCFE. J Pediatr Orthop. 2011;31:853–857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kapron AL, Anderson AE, Aoki SK, Phillips LG, Petron DJ, Toth R, Peters CL. Radiographic prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in collegiate football players: AAOS Exhibit Selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:e111–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim YJ, Novais EN. Diagnosis and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in Legg-Calve-Perthes disease. J Pediatr Orthop. 2011;31:S235–S240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leunig M, Beaule PE, Ganz R. The concept of femoroacetabular impingement: current status and future perspectives. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:616–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leunig M, Beck M, Dora C, Ganz R. Femoroacetabular impingement: trigger for the development of coxarthrosis. Orthopade. 2006;35:77–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray RO, Duncan C. Athletic activity in adolescence as an etiological factor in degenerative hip disease. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1971;53:406–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naal FD, Miozzari HH, Wyss TF, Notzli HP. Surgical hip dislocation for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in high-level athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:544–550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ng VY, Ellis TJ. Letter to the editor: the cam-type deformity of the proximal femur arises in childhood in response to vigorous sporting activity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3506–3507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ng VY, Ellis TJ. More than just a bump: cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and the evolution of the femoral neck. Hip Int. 2011;21:1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Notzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J. The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:556–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pfirrmann CW, Mengiardi B, Dora C, Kalverer F, Zanetti M, Hodler J. Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: characterstic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology. 2006;240:778–785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rakhra K, Sheikh AM, Allen DJ, Beaule PE. Comparison of MRI alpha angle measurement planes in femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:660–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reichenbach S, Juni P, Werlen S, Nuesch E, Pfirrmann CW, Trelle S, Odermatt A, Hofstetter W, Ganz R, Leunig M. Prevalence of cam-type deformity on hip magnetic resonance imaging in young males: a cross-sectional study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:1319–1327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reichenbach S, Leunig M, Werlen S, Nuesch E, Pfirrmann CW, Bonel H, Odermatt A, Hofstetter W, Ganz R, Juni P. Association between cam-type deformities and magnetic resonance imaging-detected structural hip damage: a cross-sectional study in young men. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:4023–4030.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siebenrock KA, Ferner F, Noble PC, Santore RF, Werlen S, Mamisch TC. The cam-type deformity of the proximal femur arises in childhood in response to vigorous sporting activity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3229–3240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stulberg SD, Cordell LD, Harris WH, Ramsey PL, MacEwen GD. Unrecognized childhood hip disease: a major cause of idiopathic osteoarthritis of the hip. In: Cordell LD, Harris WH, Ramsey PL, MacEwen GD, eds. The Hip: Proceedings of the Third Open Scientific Meeting of the Hip Society. St Louis, MO, USA: CV Mosby; 1975:212–228.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tanzer M, Noiseux N. Osseous abnormalities and early osteoarthritis: the role of hip impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:170–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wells GD, Wilkes DL, Schneiderman-Walker J, Elmi M, Tullis E, Lands LC, Ratjen F, Coates AL. Reliability and validity of the Habitual Activity Estimation Scale (HAES) in patients with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2008;43:345–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wenger DE, Kendall KR, Miner M, Trousdale RT. Acetabular labral tears rarely occur in the absence of bony abnormalities. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;426:145–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sasha Carsen
    • 1
  • Paul J. Moroz
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kawan Rakhra
    • 2
  • Leanne M. Ward
    • 3
  • Hal Dunlap
    • 2
    • 3
  • John A. Hay
    • 4
  • R. Baxter Willis
    • 1
    • 3
  • Paul E. Beaulé
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic ImagingUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Children’s Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Brock UniversitySt CatherinesCanada
  5. 5.The Ottawa HospitalOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations