Aims. Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients report exacerbation of hip pain in deep flexion. However, the exact impingement location in deep flexion is unknown. The aim was to investigate impingement-free maximal flexion, impingement location, and if cam deformity causes hip impingement in flexion in FAI patients. Methods. A retrospective study involving 24 patients (37 hips) with FAI and femoral retroversion (femoral version (FV) < 5° per Murphy method) was performed. All patients were symptomatic (mean age 28 years (SD 9)) and had anterior hip/groin pain and a positive anterior impingement test. Cam- and pincer-type subgroups were analyzed. Patients were compared to an asymptomatic control group (26 hips). All patients underwent pelvic CT scans to generate personalized CT-based 3D models and validated software for patient-specific impingement simulation (equidistant method). Results. Mean impingement-free flexion of patients with mixed-type FAI (110° (SD 8°)) and patients with pincer-type FAI (112° (SD 8°)) was significantly (p < 0.001) lower compared to the control group (125° (SD 13°)). The frequency of extra-articular subspine impingement was significantly (p < 0.001) increased in patients with pincer-type FAI (57%) compared to cam-type FAI (22%) in 125° flexion. Bony impingement in maximal flexion was located anterior-inferior at femoral four and five o’clock position in patients with cam-type FAI (63% (10 of 16 hips) and 37% (6 of 10 hips)), and did not involve the cam deformity. The cam deformity did not cause impingement in maximal flexion. Conclusion. Femoral impingement in maximal flexion was located anterior-inferior distal to the cam deformity. This differs to previous studies, a finding which could be important for FAI patients in order to avoid exacerbation of hip pain in deep flexion (e.g. during squats) and for hip arthroscopy (hip-preservation surgery) for planning of bone resection. Hip impingement in flexion has implications for daily activities (e.g. putting on shoes), sports, and sex. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(1):22–32

Aims. The frequency of severe femoral retroversion is unclear in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). This study aimed to investigate mean femoral version (FV), the frequency of absolute femoral retroversion, and the combination of decreased FV and acetabular retroversion (AR) in symptomatic patients with FAI subtypes. Methods. A retrospective institutional review board-approved observational study was performed with 333 symptomatic patients (384 hips) with hip pain due to FAI evaluated for hip preservation surgery. Overall, 142 patients (165 hips) had cam-type FAI, while 118 patients (137 hips) had mixed-type FAI. The allocation to each subgroup was based on reference values calculated on anteroposterior radiographs. CT/MRI-based measurement of FV (Murphy method) and AV were retrospectively compared among five FAI subgroups. Frequency of decreased FV < 10°, severely decreased FV < 5°, and absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°) was analyzed. Results. A significantly (p < 0.001) lower mean FV was found in patients with cam-type FAI (15° (SD 10°)), and in patients with mixed-type FAI (17° (SD 11°)) compared to severe over-coverage (20° (SD 12°). Frequency of decreased FV < 10° was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in patients with cam-type FAI (28%, 46 hips) and in patients with over-coverage (29%, 11 hips) compared to severe over-coverage (12%, 5 hips). Absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°) was found in 13% (5 hips) of patients with over-coverage, 6% (10 hips) of patients with cam-type FAI, and 5% (7 hips) of patients with mixed-type FAI. The frequency of decreased FV< 10° combined with acetabular retroversion (AV < 10°) was 6% (8 hips) in patients with mixed-type FAI and 5% (20 hips) in all FAI patients. Of patients with over-coverage, 11% (4 hips) had decreased FV < 10° combined with acetabular retroversion (AV < 10°). Conclusion. Patients with cam-type FAI had a considerable proportion (28%) of decreased FV < 10° and 6% had absolute femoral retroversion (FV < 0°), even more for patients with pincer-type FAI due to over-coverage (29% and 13%). This could be important for patients evaluated for open hip preservation surgery or hip arthroscopy, and each patient requires careful personalized evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):557–565

Aims. To evaluate how abnormal proximal femoral anatomy affects different femoral version measurements in young patients with hip pain. Methods. First, femoral version was measured in 50 hips of symptomatic consecutively selected patients with hip pain (mean age 20 years (SD 6), 60% (n = 25) females) on preoperative CT scans using different measurement methods: Lee et al, Reikerås et al, Tomczak et al, and Murphy et al. Neck-shaft angle (NSA) and α angle were measured on coronal and radial CT images. Second, CT scans from three patients with femoral retroversion, normal femoral version, and anteversion were used to create 3D femur models, which were manipulated to generate models with different NSAs and different cam lesions, resulting in eight models per patient. Femoral version measurements were repeated on manipulated femora. Results. Comparing the different measurement methods for femoral version resulted in a maximum mean difference of 18° (95% CI 16 to 20) between the most proximal (Lee et al) and most distal (Murphy et al) methods. Higher differences in proximal and distal femoral version measurement techniques were seen in femora with greater femoral version (r > 0.46; p < 0.001) and greater NSA (r > 0.37; p = 0.008) between all measurement methods. In the parametric 3D manipulation analysis, differences in femoral version increased 11° and 9° in patients with high and normal femoral version, respectively, with increasing NSA (110° to 150°). Conclusion. Measurement of femoral version angles differ depending on the method used to almost 20°, which is in the range of the aimed surgical correction in derotational femoral osteotomy and thus can be considered clinically relevant. Differences between proximal and distal measurement methods further increase by increasing femoral version and NSA. Measurement methods that take the entire proximal femur into account by using distal landmarks may produce more sensitive measurements of these differences. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):759–766

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) causes pain and chondrolabral damage via mechanical overload during movement of the hip. It is caused by many different types of pathoanatomy, including the cam ‘bump’, decreased head–neck offset, acetabular retroversion, global acetabular overcoverage, prominent anterior–inferior iliac spine, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, and the sequelae of childhood Perthes’ disease.

Both evolutionary and developmental factors may cause FAI. Prevalence studies show that anatomic variations that cause FAI are common in the asymptomatic population. Young athletes may be predisposed to FAI because of the stress on the physis during development. Other factors, including the soft tissues, may also influence symptoms and chondrolabral damage.

FAI and the resultant chondrolabral pathology are often treated arthroscopically. Although the results are favourable, morphologies can be complex, patient expectations are high and the surgery is challenging. The long-term outcomes of hip arthroscopy are still forthcoming and it is unknown if treatment of FAI will prevent arthrosis.