Literature DB >> 33930002

Is Cam Morphology Found in Ancient and Medieval Populations in Addition to Modern Populations?

Bartosz Jan Musielak1, Anna Maria Kubicka2, Łukasz Woźniak1, Marek Jóźwiak1, Raymond W Liu3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cam morphology is thought to originate near puberty and reflects a response of the peripheral aspect of the proximal femoral physis to increased local load. Participation in particular sports activities has been associated with cam morphology in contemporary patient populations; however, it is unclear whether cam is a recent phenomenon. There are limited data regarding the frequency of its occurrence and the general deviations in femoral anatomy in different historical populations. Such information may help to understand the possible influence of lifestyle and diet on cam morphology. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate femoral morphology in three historical populations. We asked: (1) Was cam morphology present in the three study populations, did those populations differ, and were there differences between sexes? (2) Were there differences in neck-shaft angle, version, or inclination between and among the examined populations?
METHODS: We examined 204 adult femurs from the Neolithic population from Iran (n = 37, 3000 BC to 1631 BC), medieval population from Poland (n = 135, 10th to 13th centuries), and contemporary Australian aborigines (n = 32, early 20th century), provided by the Open Research Scan Archive, Museum of the First Piasts at Lednica and the University of Wrocław, respectively. All three human populations represent different chronologic periods and lifestyles. All bones were scanned using CT and then measured on their three-dimensional (3-D) reconstructions in selected planes. Cam impingement was defined as an alpha angle > 55° measured on the inclination view. To evaluate the differences in anatomy between populations, we measured the true neck-shaft angle on the true AP view, apparent neck-shaft angle on the apparent AP view, the version angle on the version view, and the inclination angle on the inclination view. The prevalence of cam morphology and other anatomic parameters were compared among groups using chi-square test, one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test, and paired t-test.
RESULTS: Cam morphology was present in 5% of the Neolithic population from Iran, in 7% of the medieval population from Poland, and 3% of the contemporary Australian aborigine femurs (OR Neolithic population from Iran/the medieval population from Poland 0.7 [95% CI 0.2 to 3.4]; p = 0.67; OR Neolithic population from Iran/contemporary Australian aborigines 1.8 [95% CI 0.2 to 20.5]; p = 0.65; OR the medieval population from Poland/contemporary Australian aborigines 2.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 20.1]; p = 0.40). There were differences in the presence of cam morphology between the sexes in the medieval population from Poland with both femurs (females: 1% [1 of 76]; males: 15% [9 of 59]; p = 0.002). There was a difference in true neck-shaft angle between the Neolithic population from Iran (121° ± 6°) and contemporary Australian aborigines (131° ± 5°; mean difference 10° [95% CI 7° to 13°]; p < 0.001) and between the medieval population from Poland (124° ± 5°) and the contemporary Australian aborigines (mean difference 7° [95% CI 5° to 9°]; p < 0.001). Apparent neck-shaft angle differed between the Neolithic population from Iran (126° ± 6°) and the contemporary Australian aborigines (134° ± 5°; mean difference 8° [95% CI 6° to 11°]; p < 0.001), and between the medieval population from Poland (126° ± 6°) and the contemporary Australian aborigines (mean difference 9° [95% CI 7° to 11°]; p < 0.001). Moreover, we observed a difference in the version angle between the Neolithic population from Iran (19° ± 7°) and the medieval population from Poland (12° ± 9°; mean difference 7° [95% CI 4° to 10°]; p < 0.001] and in the inclination angle between aforementioned groups (18° ± 7° versus 11° ± 8°; mean difference 7° [95% CI 5° to 10°]; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This study found that cam morphology existed in historical populations at rates comparable with a contemporary population. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The presence of cam morphology in historical populations suggests that cam morphology can develop outside of the intense sports activity seen in modern adolescents. Further study will help elucidate the etiology of cam morphology, which may be useful in the development of preventive strategies.
Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33930002      PMCID: PMC8277248          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001771

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.755


  23 in total

1.  Gender differences in the anatomy of the distal femur.

Authors:  R J Gillespie; A Levine; S J Fitzgerald; J Kolaczko; M DeMaio; R E Marcus; D R Cooperman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-03

2.  Decreased and increased relative acetabular volume predict the development of osteoarthritis of the hip: an osteological review of 1090 hips.

Authors:  D S Weinberg; D F K Williamson; M B Millis; R W Liu
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.082

3.  Ethnic Differences in Bony Hip Morphology in a Cohort of 445 Professional Male Soccer Players.

Authors:  Andrea B Mosler; Kay M Crossley; Jan H Waarsing; Nabil Jomaah; Adam Weir; Per Hölmich; Rintje Agricola
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  Prevalence of radiographic findings thought to be associated with femoroacetabular impingement in a population-based cohort of 2081 healthy young adults.

Authors:  Lene B Laborie; Trude G Lehmann; Ingvild Ø Engesæter; Deborah M Eastwood; Lars B Engesæter; Karen Rosendahl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Differences between race and sex in measures of hip morphology: a population-based comparative study.

Authors:  K Edwards; K M Leyland; M T Sanchez-Santos; C P Arden; T D Spector; A E Nelson; J M Jordan; M Nevitt; D J Hunter; N K Arden
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 6.576

6.  NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis.

Authors:  Caroline A Schneider; Wayne S Rasband; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 28.547

7.  The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement.

Authors:  H P Nötzli; T F Wyss; C H Stoecklin; M R Schmid; K Treiber; J Hodler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2002-05

8.  Capital Femoral Growth Plate Extension Predicts Cam Morphology in a Longitudinal Radiographic Study.

Authors:  William Z Morris; Douglas S Weinberg; Jeremy J Gebhart; Daniel R Cooperman; Raymond W Liu
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Inter- and intra-rater reliability for measurement of range of motion in joints included in three hypermobility assessment methods.

Authors:  Angela Schlager; Kerstin Ahlqvist; Eva Rasmussen-Barr; Elisabeth Krefting Bjelland; Ronnie Pingel; Christina Olsson; Lena Nilsson-Wikmar; Per Kristiansson
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Decreasing pelvic incidence is associated with greater risk of cam morphology.

Authors:  W Z Morris; C A Fowers; R T Yuh; J J Gebhart; M J Salata; R W Liu
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.853

View more
  1 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Is Cam Morphology Found in Ancient and Medieval Populations in Addition to Modern Populations?

Authors:  Benjamin F Ricciardi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 4.755

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.