Literature DB >> 26219994

Sex Differences in Patients With CAM Deformities With Femoroacetabular Impingement: 3-Dimensional Computed Tomographic Quantification.

Adam B Yanke1, M Michael Khair1, Robert Stanley1, David Walton1, Simon Lee1, Charles A Bush-Joseph1, Alejandro Espinoza Orías, Alejandro A Espinosa Orias1, Nozomu Inoue1, Shane J Nho2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if significant differences exist between male and female CAM deformities using quantitative 3-dimensional (3D) volume and location analysis.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of preoperative computed tomographic (CT) scans for 138 femurs (69 from male patients and 69 from female patients) diagnosed with impingement from November 2009 to November 2011 was completed. Those patients who presented with hip complaints and had a history, physical examination (limited range of motion, positive impingement signs), plain radiographs (anteroposterior pelvis, 90° Dunn view, false profile view), and magnetic resonance images consistent with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and in whom a minimum of 6 months of conservative therapy (oral anti-inflammatory agents, physical therapy, and activity modification) had failed were indicated for arthroscopic surgery and had a preoperative CT scan. Scans were segmented, converted to point cloud data, and analyzed with a custom-written computer program. Analysis included mean CAM height and volume, head radius, and femoral version. Differences were analyzed using an unpaired t test with significance set at P < .05.
RESULTS: Female patients had greater femoral anteversion compared with male patients (female patients, 15.5° ± 8.3°; male patients, 11.3° ± 9.0°; P = .06). Male femoral head radii were significantly larger than female femoral heads (female patients, 22.0 ± 1.3 mm; male patients, 25.4 ± 1.3 mm; P < .001). Male CAM height was significantly larger than that in female patients (female patients, 0.66 ± 0.61 mm; male patients, 1.51 ± 0.75 mm; P < .001). Male CAM volume was significantly larger as well (male patients, 433 ± 471 mm(3); female patients, 89 ± 124 mm(3); P < .001). These differences persisted after normalizing height (P < .001) and volume (P < .001) to femoral head radius. Average clock face distribution was from the 1:09 o'clock position ± the 2:51 o'clock position to the 3:28 o'clock position ± the 1:59 o'clock position, with an average span from the 3:06 o'clock position ± the 1:29 o'clock position (male patients, the 11:23 o'clock position ± the 0:46 o'clock position to the 3:05 o'clock position ± the 1:20 o'clock position; female patients, the 11:33 o'clock position ± the 0:37 o'clock position to the 2:27 o'clock position ± the 0:45 o'clock position). There were no differences in the posterior (P = .60) or anterior (P = .14) extent of CAM deformities. However, the span on the clock face of the CAM deformities varied when comparing men with women (male patients, the 3:43 o'clock position ± the 1:29 o'clock position; female patients, the 2:54 o'clock position ± the 1:09 o'clock position; P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that female CAM deformities are shallower and of smaller volume than male lesions. Further studies will allow further characterization of the 3D geometry of the proximal femur and provide more precise guidance for femoral osteochondroplasty for the treatment of CAM deformities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Female CAM deformities may not be detectable using current 2D nonquantitative methods. These findings should raise the clinician's index of suspicion when diagnosing a symptomatic CAM lesion in female patients.
Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26219994     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  18 in total

1.  Arthroscopic versus open treatment of cam-type femoro-acetabular impingement: retrospective cohort clinical study.

Authors:  Paulo A Rego; Vasco Mascarenhas; Filipe S Oliveira; Pedro C Pinto; Eduardo Sampaio; Jacinto Monteiro
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Three-Dimensional Quantification of Cam Resection Using MRI Bone Models: A Comparison of 2 Techniques.

Authors:  Thomas D Alter; Derrick M Knapik; Martina Guidetti; Alejandro Espinoza; Jorge Chahla; Shane J Nho; Philip Malloy
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2022-05-06

3.  Cam deformity and the omega angle, a novel quantitative measurement of femoral head-neck morphology: a 3D CT gender analysis in asymptomatic subjects.

Authors:  Vasco V Mascarenhas; Paulo Rego; Pedro Dantas; Augusto Gaspar; Francisco Soldado; José G Consciência
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Sex-specific sagittal and frontal plane gait mechanics in persons post-hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

Authors:  Lindsey Brown-Taylor; Brittany Schroeder; Cara L Lewis; Jennifer Perry; Timothy E Hewett; John Ryan; Stephanie Di Stasi
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  3D CT segmentation of CAM type femoroacetabular impingement-reliability and relationship of CAM lesion with anthropomorphic features.

Authors:  Lihua Zhang; Joel E Wells; Riham Dessouky; Adam Gleason; Rajiv Chopra; Yonatan Chatzinoff; Nicholas P Fey; Yin Xi; Avneesh Chhabra
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  A Cam Morphology Develops in the Early Phase of the Final Growth Spurt in Adolescent Ice Hockey Players: Results of a Prospective MRI-based Study.

Authors:  Markus S Hanke; Florian Schmaranzer; Simon D Steppacher; Stephan Reichenbach; Stefan F Werlen; Klaus A Siebenrock
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Viability and Tissue Quality of Cartilage Flaps From Patients With Femoroacetabular Hip Impingement: A Matched-Control Comparison.

Authors:  Francisco Rodriguez-Fontan; Karin A Payne; Jorge Chahla; Omer Mei-Dan; Abigail Richards; Soshi Uchida; Cecilia Pascual-Garrido
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2017-08-16

8.  Three-dimensional assessment of impingement risk in geometrically parameterised hips compared with clinical measures.

Authors:  Robert J Cooper; Marlène Mengoni; Dawn Groves; Sophie Williams; Marcus J K Bankes; Philip Robinson; Alison C Jones
Journal:  Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 2.747

9.  Femoroacetabular impingement as a complication of acetabular fracture fixation.

Authors:  David A Zuelzer; Christopher B Hayes; Raymond D Wright; Stephen T Duncan
Journal:  Trauma Case Rep       Date:  2018-10-13

10.  Do Female Athletes Return to Sports After Hip Preservation Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome?: A Comparative Analysis.

Authors:  Rachel M Frank; Kyle N Kunze; Edward C Beck; William H Neal; Charles A Bush-Joseph; Shane J Nho
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-03-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.