Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

FAI morphology increases the risk for osteoarthritis in young people with a minimum follow-up of 25 years

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The mechanical conflict in symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement can lead to early osteoarthritis. However, radiographic impingement morphology is often seen in asymptomatic individuals. Long-term observation regarding the risk of developing osteoarthritis in these individuals is lacking. Our study addressed the following questions: Does femoroacetabular impingement morphology increase the risk for development of osteoarthritis after at least 25 years? If yes, which radiographic parameter is the most predictive? Does the level of activity influence the risk for development of osteoarthritis? Are PROM influenced by the grade of osteoarthritis in this population?

Methods

We investigated 51 (32 male, 19 female) patients for whom AP pelvis and Dunn view radiographs were available with a minimum follow-up of 25 years. Alpha angle in AP pelvis and Dunn view radiographs, femoral torsion in Dunn view, lateral center edge angle, cross-over sign, posterior wall sign and prominence of ischial spine sign in AP pelvis radiographs were determined. On the follow-up radiographs, osteoarthritis was graded. Tegner Score for the time of the index radiograph was evaluated. Harris Hip Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were assessed at latest follow-up.

Results

The mean follow-up was 43 years (range 25–58). Cam impingement morphology showed to increase the risk for development of osteoarthritis: Alpha angles of ≥ 55° on AP pelvis and Dunn view radiographs were associated risk factors and showed an OR of 1.05 (p = 0.002) and 1.10 (p = 0.001), respectively. Abnormal femoral torsion and acetabular retroversion were not risk factors for osteoarthritis. Tegner Score at index presentation, HHS and WOMAC Score did not correlate with the grade of osteoarthritis.

Conclusion

This study showed that cam impingement morphology in young patients raises the risk for development of hip osteoarthritis by 5–10% in a long-term follow-up with a minimum of 25 years, thus its contribution was small.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackerman IN, Bohensky MA, Zomer E et al (2019) The projected burden of primary total knee and hip replacement for osteoarthritis in Australia to the year 2030. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12:84

    Google Scholar 

  2. Agricola R, Waarsing JH, Arden NK et al (2013) Cam impingement of the hip: a risk factor for hip osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 9(10):630–634

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson LA, Peters CL, Park BB, Stoddard GJ, Erickson JA, Crim JR (2009) Acetabular cartilage delamination in femoroacetabular impingement Risk factors and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis. J Bone Joint Surg 34:85

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R (2005) Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg 12:6

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 34:9

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cooperman DR (2019) How Good is the Evidence Linking Acetabular Dysplasia to Osteoarthritis? J Pediatr Orthop 39:S20–S22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. de Silva V, Swain M, Broderick C, McKay D (2016) Does high level youth sports participation increase the risk of femoroacetabular impingement? A review of the current literature. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 14:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dunn DM (1952) Anteversion of the neck of the femur; a method of measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 34(2):181–186

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gala L, Clohisy JC, Beaule PE (2016) Hip dysplasia in the young adult. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):63–73

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ganz R, Leunig M, Leunig-Ganz K, Harris WH (2008) The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip: an integrated mechanical concept. Clin Orthop Relat R 12:7

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA (2003) Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat R 34:08

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gosvig KK, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Gebuhr P (2008) The prevalence of cam-type deformity of the hip joint: a survey of 4151 subjects of the Copenhagen Osteoarthritis Study. Acta Radiol 49(4):436–441

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grammatopoulos G, Melkus G, Rakhra K, Beaule PE (2019) Does Cartilage Degenerate in Asymptomatic Hips With Cam Morphology? Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(5):962–971

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Grantham WJ, Philippon MJ (2019) Etiology and pathomechanics of femoroacetabular impingement. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2:259

    Google Scholar 

  15. Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 34:09

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hartofilakidis G, Bardakos NV, Babis GC, Georgiades G (2011) An examination of the association between different morphotypes of femoroacetabular impingement in asymptomatic subjects and the development of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):580–586

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Issa SN, Sharma L (2006) Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: an update. Curr Rheumatol Rep 24:05

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jung KA, Restrepo C, Hellman M, AbdelSalam H, Morrison W, Parvizi J (2011) The prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular deformity in asymptomatic adults. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(10):1303–1307

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kalberer F, Sierra RJ, Madan SS, Ganz R, Leunig M (2008) Ischial spine projection into the pelvis : a new sign for acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(3):677–683

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kapron AL, Aoki SK, Peters CL, Anderson AE (2014) Subject-specific patterns of femur-labrum contact are complex and vary in asymptomatic hips and hips with femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat R 65:02

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheumatic Diseases 98:28

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG et al (2008) Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Arthritis Rheumat 567:91–174

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee CB, Spencer HT (2017) Comparison of intraoperative fluoroscopic dunn view with magnetic resonance imaging to determine femoral version. Arthroscopy 33(6):1186–1193

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lequesne M (1963) Coxometry measurement of the basic angles of the adult radiographic hip by a combined protractor. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic 30:479–485

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 54:02

    Google Scholar 

  26. Murphy LB, Helmick CG, Schwartz TA et al (2010) One in four people may develop symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in his or her lifetime. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18(11):1372–1379

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Murphy SB, Ganz R, Muller ME (1995) The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:985–989

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nevitt MC, Lane NE, Scott JC et al (1995) Radiographic osteoarthritis of the hip and bone mineral density. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group, Arthritis and rheumatism

    Google Scholar 

  29. Notzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J (2002) The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(4):556–560

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Parvizi J, Leunig M, Ganz R (2007) Femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(9):561–570

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K (1999) Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:281–288

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rippstein J (1955) Determination of the antetorsion of the femur neck by means of two x-ray pictures. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 86(3):345–360

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Saberi Hosnijeh F, Zuiderwijk ME, Versteeg M et al (2017) Cam deformity and acetabular dysplasia as risk factors for hip osteoarthritis. Arthrit Rheumatol 43:75

    Google Scholar 

  34. Smith-Petersen MN (2009) The classic: treatment of malum coxae senilis, old slipped upper femoral epiphysis, intrapelvic protrusion of the acetabulum, and coxa plana by means of acetabuloplasty 1936. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:608–615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Speirs AD, Beaulé PE, Huang A, Frei H (2017) Properties of the cartilage layer from the cam-type hip impingement deformity. J Biomech 65:84

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CW (2012) Femoral antetorsion: comparing asymptomatic volunteers and patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Radiology 263(2):475–483

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sutter R, Dietrich TJ, Zingg PO, Pfirrmann CW (2012) How useful is the alpha angle for discriminating between symptomatic patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement and asymptomatic volunteers? Radiology 264(2):514–521

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tannast M, Fritsch S, Zheng G, Siebenrock KA, Steppacher SD (2015) Which radiographic hip parameters do not have to be corrected for pelvic rotation and tilt? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(4):1255–1266

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Tegner score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 65:1–86

    Google Scholar 

  40. Thomas GER, Palmer AJR, Batra RN et al (2014) Subclinical deformities of the hip are significant predictors of radiographic osteoarthritis and joint replacement in women. A 20 year longitudinal cohort study. Osteoarth artilage 547:96–123

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tonnis D (1990) Surgical treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 258:33–40

    Google Scholar 

  42. Toogood PA, Skalak A, Cooperman DR (2009) Proximal femoral anatomy in the normal human population. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(4):876–885

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Werner CM, Copeland CE, Ruckstuhl T et al (2010) Radiographic markers of acetabular retroversion: correlation of the cross-over sign, ischial spine sign and posterior wall sign. Acta Orthop Belg 76(2):166–173

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wyles CC, Heidenreich MJ, Jeng J, Larson DR, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ (2017) The John Charnley award: Redefining the Natural History of Osteoarthritis in patients with hip dysplasia and impingement. Clin Orthop Relat 36:79

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wyles CC, Norambuena GA, Howe BM et al (2017) Cam deformities and limited hip range of motion are associated with early osteoarthritic changes in adolescent athletes: a prospective matched cohort study. Am J Sports Med 45(13):3036–3043

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Christa Fritschi, UCAR, Balgrist University Hospital for her assistance in this research project

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Armando Hoch and Pascal Schenk equally contributed.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    Armando Hoch, Pascal Schenk, Thorsten Jentzsch, Stefan Rahm & Patrick O. Zingg

Authors
  1. Armando Hoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pascal Schenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thorsten Jentzsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Rahm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick O. Zingg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armando Hoch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The local ethical committee approved this study (Zurich Cantonal Ethics Commission, 2017–00840).

Informed consent

All patients gave their informed consent for their participation in and the publication of this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoch, A., Schenk, P., Jentzsch, T. et al. FAI morphology increases the risk for osteoarthritis in young people with a minimum follow-up of 25 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141, 1175–1181 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03522-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03522-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation