Aims

Cam and pincer morphologies are potential precursors to hip osteoarthritis and important contributors to non-arthritic hip pain. However, only some hips with these pathomorphologies develop symptoms and joint degeneration, and it is not clear why. Anterior impingement between the femoral head-neck contour and acetabular rim in positions of hip flexion combined with rotation is a proposed pathomechanism in these hips, but this has not been studied in active postures. Our aim was to assess the anterior impingement pathomechanism in both active and passive postures with high hip flexion that are thought to provoke impingement.

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) deformities are a potential precursor to hip osteoarthritis and an important contributor to non-arthritic hip pain. Some hips with FAI deformities develop symptoms of pain in the hip and groin that are primarily position related. The reason for pain generation in these hips is unclear. Understanding potential impingement mechanisms in FAI hips will help us understand pain generation. Impingement between the femoral head-neck contour and acetabular rim has been proposed as a pathomechanism in FAI hips. This proposed pathomechanism has not been quantified with direct measurements in physiological postures. Research question: Is femoroacetabular clearance different in symptomatic FAI hips compared to asymptomatic FAI and control hips in sitting flexion, adduction, and internal rotation (FADIR) and squatting postures?

We recruited 33 participants: 9 with symptomatic FAI, 13 with asymptomatic FAI, and 11 controls from the Investigation of Mobility, Physical Activity, and Knowledge Translation in Hip Pain (IMAKT-HIP) cohort. We scanned each participant's study hip in sitting FADIR and squatting postures using an upright open MRI scanner (MROpen, Paramed, Genoa, Italy). We quantified femoroacetabular clearance in sitting FADIR and squatting using beta angle measurements which have been shown to be a reliable surrogate for acetabular rim pressures. We chose sitting FADIR and squatting because they represent, respectively, passive and active maneuvers that involve high flexion combined with internal/external rotation and adduction/abduction, which are thought to provoke impingement.

In the squatting posture, the symptomatic FAI group had a significantly smaller minimum beta angle (−4.6º±15.2º) than the asymptomatic FAI (12.5º ±13.2º) (P= 0.018) and control groups (19.8º ±8.6º) (P=0.001). In the sitting FADIR posture, both symptomatic and asymptomatic FAI groups had significantly smaller beta angles (−9.3º ±14º [P=0.010] and −3.9º ±9.7º [P=0.028], respectively) than the control group (5.7º ±5.7º).

Our results show loss of clearance between the femoral head-neck contour and acetabular rim (negative beta angle) occurred in symptomatic FAI hips in sitting FADIR and squatting. We did not observe loss of clearance in the asymptomatic FAI group for squatting, while we did observe loss of clearance for this group in sitting FADIR. These differences may be due to accommodation mechanisms in the active, squatting posture that are not present in the passive, sitting FADIR posture. Our results support the hypothesis that impingement between the femoral head-neck contour and acetabular rim is a pathomechanism in FAI hips leading to pain generation.

Revision surgery is an important outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty among patients with osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this study was to determine the risk of revision over time in a large, geographically defined population in North America, and to assess the effects of age, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES) on knee and hip revision rates in this population.

We used data on admissions to all acute care hospitals in British Columbia (BC), Canada (population of four million people) from 1986 until 2004 (eighteen years of follow-up). Primary knee and hip replacement surgery for OA and revision procedures were identified using diagnostic (ICD-9, ICD-10) codes and surgical procedure codes. We excluded cases admitted due to injury or neoplasm. SES was assigned based on residential address linked to census data at the level of enumeration area (ecological variable), and analyzed according to quintiles or deciles of the distribution. In the analysis, we used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to describe the risk of first revision following first primary replacement surgery over time and parametric (Weibull) survival regression models to analyze the effects of joint (hip vs. knee) age, sex, and SES on revision rates. Death, emigration, and another primary joint replacement were treated as censoring events.

Between 1986 and 2004, we observed 24,169 first primary hip replacements and 22,875 first primary knee replacements. In these patients, there were 1,313 hip revisions and 914 knee revisions following a primary replacement. The risk of revision at five, ten and fifteen years after primary replacement according to joint and sex were identified The overall risks were 10.1% for the hip and 8.7% for the knee at ten years, and 15.5% and 14.7%, respectively, at fifteen years. Risk of revision (%) following first primary joint replacement surgery Hip Knee Years Men Women Men Women 5 5.0 3.9 4.6 3.8 10 11.0 9.4 9.7 8.0 15 17.8 14.1 18.5 12.4 In a multivariate survival regression model including joint, age, sex, and SES, only age and sex were significantly associated with revisions. The hazard ratio was 1.2 for men compared with women (p< 0.0001). Revision rates were higher in younger persons, with hazard ratios increasing from 1.7 for age 70–79 (p< 0.0001) to 3.9 for age < 49 (p< 0.0001) compared with age 80+. After adjusting for age and sex, SES was not significantly associated with revision risk following primary hip or knee replacement surgery in this population (p=0.75).

This is one of the largest and longest cohort studies in North America to look at the epidemiology of revision procedures following hip and knee replacement for OA. Higher rates in men and in younger persons are consistent with previous reports. The lack of association between revision risk and SES in BC is an important finding given current concerns about socioeconomic disparities in access to and outcomes of treatment for OA.

Purpose: To evaluate the benefits of standardization on the reliability of the physical examination of the hip by rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons

Methods: Six subjects with mild to severe hip osteoarthritis (OA) were examined by 6 examiners (4 rheumatologists, 2 orthopedic surgeons) experienced in the assessment of hip OA using a 6x6 Latin square design. Subjects were examined, followed by a standardization meeting and, a day later, by post-standardization examinations. 33 hip examination maneuvers were evaluated, including range of motion, pain, tenderness, muscle strength, leg length and gait. The order of examinations was randomized for each examiner. For dichotomous signs, agreement was calculated as the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Ordinal and continuous variables were analyzed by ANOVA, using the proportion of variance due to rheumatologists to calculate a reliability coefficient (Rc).

Results: Subjects’ mean age was 61 years (range 49–65), mean BMI was 24 (range 21–30), mean WOMAC pain on walking was 52 mm (range 21–81mm). 23/33 (70%) hip examinations were reliable after standardization. Two new items resulted from the standardization meeting. Pre-/post-standardization reliability for select hip examinations using PABAK were as follows: Gait 0.06/0.52; pain on internal rotation 0.60/0.52; pain on external rotation 0.24/0.72; pain on flexion 0.46/0.82; Patrick test for hip pain 0.78/0.80; Thomas test 0.60/0.88; Trendelenburg test 0.36/0.06. Pre-/post-standardization reliability for select hip examinations using Rc were as follows: hip flexion strength 0.83/0.95; hip abduction strength 0.90/0.86; hip adduction strength 0.87/0.86; ROM internal rotation (supine) 0.87/0.94; ROM external rotation (supine) 0.87/0.80.

Conclusions: Moderate to very good agreement was present for many hip examinations prior to standardization. Improved reliability was achieved after standardization for many but not all hip assessments. This will be important for improved outcome studies of early hip OA.