Femoral impingement in maximal hip flexion is anterior-inferior distal to the cam deformity in femoroacetabular impingement patients with femoral retroversion : implications for hip arthroscopy

Significant difference in femoral torsion between coronal plane alignment of the knee type 1 and 4

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to find out whether the torsions of the femur and tibia are dependent on the coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) type.

METHODS

Five hundred patients (1000 legs) were included, who received a whole leg standing three-dimensional (3D) radiograph using EOS imaging (EOS Imaging, Paris, France). SterEOS software was used for digital reconstruction. Femoral and tibial torsions were determined by analysing 3D reconstructions of each leg. Femoral torsion was defined as the angle between the femoral neck axis (FNA) and the posterior condylar axis (PCA). Tibial torsion was defined as the angle between the axis tangent to the posterior part of the tibia plateau and the transmalleolar axis. Arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) and joint-line obliquity (JLO) were also determined, allowing each leg to be assigned one of nine possible phenotypes according to CPAK.

RESULTS

The mean femoral torsion in CPAK type 1 was significantly higher (+ 2.6° ± 0.8°) than in CPAK type 4 (p = 0.02). All other CPAK types did not differ in the degree of femoral torsions. No differences could be demonstrated for the tibial torsion.

CONCLUSION

There is a correlation between the coronal alignment of the lower limb and femoral torsion. This may provide the basis for extending the CPAK classification beyond the coronal plane.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Hip joint contact pressure and force: a scoping review of in vivo and cadaver studies

Aims

Research on hip biomechanics has analyzed femoroacetabular contact pressures and forces in distinct hip conditions, with different procedures, and used diverse loading and testing conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the available evidence in the literature for hip contact pressures and force in cadaver and in vivo studies, and how joint loading, labral status, and femoral and acetabular morphology can affect these biomechanical parameters.

Methods

We used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews for this literature search in three databases. After screening, 16 studies were included for the final analysis.

Results

The studies assessed different hip conditions like labrum status, the biomechanical effect of the cam, femoral version, acetabular coverage, and the effect of rim trimming. The testing and loading conditions were also quite diverse, and this disparity limits direct comparisons between the different researches. With normal anatomy the mean contact pressures ranged from 1.54 to 4.4 MPa, and the average peak contact pressures ranged from 2 to 9.3 MPa. Labral tear or resection showed an increase in contact pressures that diminished after repair or reconstruction of the labrum. Complete cam resection also decreased the contact pressure, and acetabular rim resection of 6 mm increased the contact pressure at the acetabular base.

Conclusion

To date there is no standardized methodology to access hip contact biomechanics in hip arthroscopy, or with the preservation of the periarticular soft-tissues. A tendency towards improved biomechanics (lower contact pressures) was seen with labral repair and reconstruction techniques as well as with cam correction.