C. Pascual-Garrido, E. L. Yanik, J. C. Clohisy, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA D. J. Li, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA G. Grammatopoulos, Nuffield Orthopaedic Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK ANCHOR Group, Washington University, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 May;477(5):1021-1033. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000649.
BACKGROUND: Acetabular cartilage damage has been described in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). However, most reports of articular cartilage damage in hip FAI have been focused on the acetabular cartilage and derived from single-center, retrospective studies of relatively small patient cohorts. Identifying patterns of articular cartilage wear is important in patient selection, treatment prognosis, and determining whether patterns of intraarticular cartilage wear are secondary to abnormal hip morphology. Using a multicenter, observational cohort, we sought to determine whether there was a specific pattern of cartilage wear across acetabular and femoral articular cartilage among patients with symptomatic FAI. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there is a specific pattern of cartilage wear in the acetabulum and femoral head, assessed during hip arthroscopy, in cam FAI, pincer, and mixed-type hip pathologies? (2) Are there specific patterns of cartilage wear associated with duration of symptoms, age, and/or body mass index (BMI)? METHODS: A multicenter observational cohort and a hip preservation database from a senior author were used to identify 802 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for the treatment of symptomatic FAI. The diagnosis of cam, pincer, or mixed-type FAI was determined by each treating surgeon at each institution using the minimum basic criteria of pain in the affected hip for a period of > 3 months, hip ROM, and radiographic findings. Acetabular and femoral head cartilage lesions were classified arthroscopically by location and severity for each group (cam, pincer, or mixed FAI). Cartilage wear was classified using the Beck classification and defined as cartilage lesions greater than Grade 1 (normal macroscopically sound cartilage). The assessment of cartilage wear was performed arthroscopically by experienced hip preservation surgeons who are a part of ANCHOR, a multicenter group that uses a longitudinally maintained database to investigate issues related to hip preservation surgery. Clinical characteristics, radiographic findings, and acetabular and femoral head damage by location and severity of wear were reported based on patient diagnoses of cam (n = 472), mixed (n = 290), and pincer (n = 40) FAI hip pathologies. Wald chi-square tests were used to test for differences in the presence of wear in each cartilage quadrant across hip pathologies, duration of symptoms, age, and BMI. One-way analysis of variance tests were used to test for differences in average grade of wear in each cartilage quadrant across hip pathologies, duration of symptoms, age, and BMI. A bivariate logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with the presence of cartilage wear in the acetabulum and femoral head. Acetabular cartilage wear was present in 743 of 802 patients (93%) in the cohort. Femoral head cartilage wear was observed in only 130 (16%). RESULTS: We found significant associations between acetabular patterns of wear and FAI hip pathologies; specifically, we observed more frequent and severe debonding of acetabular cartilage in patients with symptomatic cam (93%, 1.7 ± 1.1 grade) and mixed (97%, 1.7 ± 1.2 grade) FAI compared with Pincer (75%, 1.5 ± 0.9 grade) FAI hip pathologies (p < 0.001). Superolateral peripheral cartilage lesions occurred more frequently and with greater severity in patients with cam (90% [416 of 472] prevalence, 3.1 ± 1.1 grade) and mixed (91% [260 of 290] prevalence, 3.1 ± 1.1 grade) FAI than in pincer (60% [24 of 40] prevalence, 2.2 ± 1.1 grade) FAI hip pathologies (p < 0.0001). Conversely, patients with pincer FAI most commonly demonstrated cartilage lesions with an even distribution at the anterior and superolateral acetabular rim: 64% (25 of 40) (mean grade 2.1 ± 1.0) and 60% (24 of 40) mean grade 2.2 ± 1.1, respectively. Age was associated with increased presence of wear in both the acetabulum (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.7; p = 0.005) and femoral head (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.6-1.1; p < 0.001). BMI was associated with a greater presence of wear only in the femoral head (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.2-1.1; p = 0.002). Specifically, compared with patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m, patients with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m presented with more frequent and more severe lesions in the posterior peripheral acetabular rim (42% [47 of 117] versus 26% [171 of 677], p = 0.0006; grade 1.9 ± 1.3 versus grade 1.4 ± 0.9, p < 0.001), the anterolateral femoral head (22% [20 of 117] versus 9% [60 of 67], p = 0.006), and the anteromedial femoral head (15% [16 of 117] versus 6% [39 of 677], p = 0.002; grade 1.3 ± 0.8 versus grade 1.1 ± 0.6, p = 0.04). In general, we found that older patients (≥ 50 years old) presented with more frequent and more severe lesions in both the acetabulum and femoral head. We found no association between hip pathology and cartilage wear patterns in the examined femoral heads. CONCLUSIONS: Hip morphology affects the pattern of acetabular cartilage wear. More frequent and severe cartilage lesions were observed in patients with symptomatic FAI cam and mixed-type hip pathologies. Surgical attempts to restore normal anatomy to avoid FAI should be performed to potentially improve long-term joint homeostasis. Increasing age is an independent risk for cartilage wear in both the acetabulum and femoral head. Additionally, increased BMI is an independent risk factor for cartilage wear in the femoral head. In the future, prospective studies should provide further insight into the pathomechanics of early degenerative changes associated with hip FAI deformities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.
背景:在股骨髋臼撞击症(FAI)患者中已描述了髋臼软骨损伤。然而,大多数关于髋关节 FAI 关节软骨损伤的报道都集中在髋臼软骨上,并且源自相对较小患者队列的单中心回顾性研究。确定关节软骨磨损的模式对于患者选择、治疗预后以及确定关节内软骨磨损是否继发于异常髋关节形态很重要。我们使用多中心观察性队列研究,旨在确定在有症状的 FAI 患者中,髋臼和股骨头的关节软骨磨损是否存在特定模式。 问题/目的:(1)在凸轮型、钳夹型和混合型髋关节病变的髋关节镜检查中,髋臼和股骨头是否存在特定的软骨磨损模式?(2)症状持续时间、年龄和/或体重指数(BMI)是否与特定的软骨磨损模式相关? 方法:使用高级作者的多中心观察队列和髋关节保护数据库,确定了 802 名接受髋关节镜手术治疗症状性 FAI 的患者。每个治疗医生根据每个机构的最低基本标准(受影响髋关节 > 3 个月的疼痛期、髋关节 ROM 和影像学发现)来确定凸轮、钳夹或混合型 FAI 的诊断。根据每个组(凸轮、钳夹或混合型 FAI)的位置和严重程度,对髋臼和股骨头软骨病变进行关节镜分类。使用 Beck 分类法对软骨磨损进行分类,并定义为软骨病变大于 Grade 1(宏观上正常,软骨结构完整)。通过经验丰富的髋关节保护外科医生进行软骨磨损的评估,这些外科医生是多中心 ANCHOR 小组的一部分,该小组使用纵向维护的数据库来研究与髋关节保护手术相关的问题。根据凸轮(n = 472)、混合(n = 290)和钳夹(n = 40)FAI 髋关节病变患者的临床特征、影像学发现以及根据磨损位置和严重程度的髋臼和股骨头损伤,报告了关节软骨磨损的情况。Wald 卡方检验用于检验不同髋关节病变、症状持续时间、年龄和 BMI 之间各软骨象限存在磨损的差异。单因素方差分析用于检验不同髋关节病变、症状持续时间、年龄和 BMI 之间各软骨象限的平均磨损等级的差异。二元逻辑回归模型用于确定与髋臼和股骨头软骨磨损存在相关的独立因素。在队列中,743 例(93%)患者的髋臼软骨有磨损,130 例(16%)患者的股骨头软骨有磨损。 结果:我们发现髋臼磨损模式与 FAI 髋关节病变之间存在显著关联;具体来说,我们观察到患有症状性凸轮(93%,1.7 ± 1.1 级)和混合型(97%,1.7 ± 1.2 级)FAI 的患者的髋臼软骨脱附和更严重的髋臼软骨脱附,与钳夹(75%,1.5 ± 0.9 级)FAI 髋关节病变相比(p < 0.001)。凸轮(90% [416 例/472 例],3.1 ± 1.1 级)和混合型(91% [260 例/290 例],3.1 ± 1.1 级)FAI 患者的超外侧周围软骨病变更频繁且严重程度更高,与钳夹(60% [24 例/40 例],2.2 ± 1.1 级)FAI 髋关节病变相比(p < 0.0001)。相反,钳夹型 FAI 患者最常见的是髋臼前侧和外侧边缘均匀分布的软骨病变:64%(40 例中的 25 例)(平均 2.1 ± 1.0 级)和 60%(40 例中的 24 例)平均 2.2 ± 1.1 级。年龄与髋臼(优势比 [OR],1.05;95%置信区间 [CI],1.2-1.7;p = 0.005)和股骨头(OR,1.08;95% CI,1.6-1.1;p < 0.001)磨损的存在均相关。BMI 仅与股骨头的磨损存在相关(OR,1.1;95% CI,1.2-1.1;p = 0.002)。具体而言,与 BMI < 30 kg/m2 的患者相比,BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 的患者的髋臼后外侧缘(42% [47/117]与 26% [171/677],p = 0.0006;1.9 ± 1.3 级与 1.4 ± 0.9 级,p < 0.001)、前外侧股骨头(22% [20/117]与 9% [60/677],p = 0.006)和前内侧股骨头(15% [16/117]与 6% [39/677],p = 0.002;1.3 ± 0.8 级与 1.1 ± 0.6 级,p = 0.04)出现更频繁和更严重的软骨病变。一般来说,我们发现年龄较大(≥ 50 岁)的患者的髋臼和股骨头都更容易出现更频繁和更严重的软骨病变。我们没有发现髋关节病变与检查的股骨头软骨磨损模式之间存在关联。 结论:髋关节形态影响髋臼软骨磨损模式。患有症状性 FAI 凸轮和混合型髋关节病变的患者更频繁且更严重的髋臼软骨病变。为了可能改善长期关节稳定性,应进行旨在恢复正常解剖结构以避免 FAI 的手术尝试。年龄增长是髋臼和股骨头软骨磨损的独立危险因素。此外,BMI 增加是股骨头软骨磨损的独立危险因素。未来,前瞻性研究应进一步深入了解与髋关节 FAI 畸形相关的早期退行性改变的发病机制。 证据水平:III 级,预后研究。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019-5
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017-1
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021-5-1
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021-5-1
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017-4
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017-4
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024-9-1
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024-9-16
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024-12-30
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023-1-29
Arthroscopy. 2016-5
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016-6