Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Cam FAI and Smaller Neck Angles Increase Subchondral Bone Stresses During Squatting

A Finite Element Analysis

Ng, K. C. Geoffrey, PhD; Mantovani, Giulia, PhD; Lamontagne, Mario, PhD; Labrosse, Michel R., PhD; Beaulé, Paul E., MD, FRCSC

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®: November 27, 2018 - Volume Publish Ahead of Print - Issue - p
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000528
2018 Bernese Hip Symposium: PDF Only

Background Individuals with a cam deformity and a decreased (varus) femoral neck-shaft angle may be predisposed to symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). However, it is unclear what combined effects the cam deformity and neck angle have on acetabular cartilage and subchondral bone stresses during an impinging squat motion. We therefore used finite element analysis to examine the combined effects of cam morphology and femoral neck-shaft angle on acetabular cartilage and subchondral bone stresses during squatting, examining the differences in stress characteristics between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals with cam deformities and individuals without cam deformities and no hip pain.

Questions/purposes Using finite element analysis in this population, we asked: (1) What are the differences in acetabular cartilage stresses? (2) What are the differences in subchondral bone stresses? (3) What are the effects of high and low femoral neck-shaft angles on these stresses?

Methods Six male participants were included to represent three groups (symptomatic cam, asymptomatic cam, control without cam deformity) with two participants per group, one with the highest femoral neck-shaft angle and one with the lowest (that is, most valgus and most varus neck angles, respectively). Each participant’s finite element hip models were reconstructed from imaging data and assigned subject-specific bone material properties. Hip contact forces during squatting were determined and applied to the finite element models to examine maximum shear stresses in the acetabular cartilage and subchondral bone.

Results Both groups with cam deformities experienced higher subchondral bone stresses than cartilage stresses. Both groups with cam deformities also had higher subchondral bone stresses (symptomatic with high and low femoral neck-shaft angle = 14.1 and 15.8 MPa, respectively; asymptomatic with high and low femoral neck-shaft angle = 10.9 and 13.0 MPa, respectively) compared with the control subjects (high and low femoral neck-shaft angle = 6.4 and 6.5 MPa, respectively). The symptomatic and asymptomatic participants with low femoral neck-shaft angles had the highest cartilage and subchondral bone stresses in their respective subgroups. The asymptomatic participant with low femoral neck-shaft angle (123°) demonstrated anterolateral subchondral bone stresses (13.0 MPa), similar to the symptomatic group. The control group also showed no differences between cartilage and subchondral bone stresses.

Conclusions The resultant subchondral bone stresses modeled here coincide with findings that acetabular subchondral bone is denser in hips with cam lesions. Future laboratory studies will expand the parametric finite element analyses, varying these anatomic and subchondral bone stiffness parameters to better understand the contributions to the pathomechanism of FAI.

Clinical Relevance Individuals with a cam deformity and more varus neck orientation may experience elevated subchondral bone stresses, which may increase the risks of early clinical signs and degenerative processes associated with FAI, whereas individuals with cam morphology and normal-to-higher femoral neck-shaft angles may be at lesser risk of disease progression that would potentially require surgical intervention.

K. C. G. Ng, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

K. C. G. Ng, G. Mantovani, M. Lamontagne, Human Movement Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

G. Mantovani, M. Lamontagne, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

M. Lamontagne, M. R. Labrosse, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

M. Lamontagne, P. E. Beaulé, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

P. E. Beaulé, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital–General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, CCW 1640, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada, email: pbeaule@toh.ca

One or more of the authors (ML, PEB) received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (97778A). One or more of the authors (ML, MRL) received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (106769-2013, RGPIN-2017-04588).

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA-approval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

This work was performed at the Human Movement Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Ottawa, and at The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.

Received May 31, 2018

Accepted September 24, 2018

© 2018 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins LWW
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article:

Note: If your society membership provides full-access, you may need to login on your society website