K C Geoffrey Ng1, Giulia Mantovani2, Mario Lamontagne1,2,3, Michel R Labrosse1, Paul E Beaulé4. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. pbeaule@toh.ca.
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 participants with cam morphology had elevated stresses, a higher femoral neck-shaft angle was associated with lower stresses. Future research should examine larger amplitudes of motion to assess adverse subchondral bone stresses.
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 participants with cam morphology had elevated stresses, a higher femoral neck-shaft angle was associated with lower stresses. Future research should examine larger amplitudes of motion to assess adverse subchondral bone stresses.
Authors: Corinne R Henak; Benjamin J Ellis; Michael D Harris; Andrew E Anderson; Christopher L Peters; Jeffrey A Weiss Journal: J Biomech Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Rintje Agricola; Marinus P Heijboer; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Jan A N Verhaar; Harrie Weinans; Jan H Waarsing Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Casey A Myers; Bradley C Register; Pisit Lertwanich; Leandro Ejnisman; W Wes Pennington; J Erik Giphart; Robert F LaPrade; Marc J Philippon Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Klaus A Siebenrock; Ruth Fiechter; Moritz Tannast; Tallal C Mamisch; Brigitte von Rechenberg Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: K C Geoffrey Ng; Giulia Mantovani; Mario Lamontagne; Michel R Labrosse; Paul E Beaulé Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Edin K Suwarganda; Laura E Diamond; David G Lloyd; Thor F Besier; Ju Zhang; Bryce A Killen; Trevor N Savage; David J Saxby Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael A Samaan; Trevor Grace; Alan L Zhang; Sharmila Majumdar; Richard B Souza Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: K C Geoffrey Ng; Hadi El Daou; Marcus J K Bankes; Ferdinando Rodriguez Y Baena; Jonathan R T Jeffers Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-12-31 Impact factor: 6.202