Does cam osteochondroplasty compromise proximal femur strength?

Abstract

Little is known about the effect on load bearing ability of cam-type femurs following osteochondroplasty. The aim of this study was to compare the change in deformation undergone by cam-type femoral acetabular impingement femur models after resection of different volumes. Dry-bone replicas (N = 10) of two cam-type femurs (cam A and B) underwent resections of increasing volume (Surgery I, II and III) representing conservative, adequate and radical resections. Deformation under cyclic loading of 700 N for five cycles after each surgery was compared. The 360° alpha angle and the change in head to neck ratio at four equidistant points along the femoral neck were used as measures of surgical efficacy and volume resected. Intact cam A and B replicas had a maximum alpha angle of 88° and 90°, respectively, which were reduced to 55° and 54° post Surgery I. Cam A replicas showed a significant reduction (p < 0.01) in mean axial displacement after Surgery I (up to 10% reduction in neck volume) and an increase after Surgery III (~20%–40% reduction in neck volume) compared to unresected controls (p < 0.01). Surgery II (~10%–15% reduction in neck volume) produced no significant change in mean displacement (p > 0.05). Cam B models exhibited lower mean displacement after Surgery I, II and III (p < 0.01) compared to unresected controls. Conservative surgery appears to improve the axial load bearing ability of dry-bone models. Radical resections may significantly decrease the fracture-resistant properties of bone following osteochondroplasty which should be noted when planning such a procedure.

Keywords

Cam femoral acetabular impingement osteochondroplasty femoral strength fracture risk resection volume head–neck ratio alpha angle

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Siebenrock

Ferner

Noble

. The cam-type deformity of the proximal femur arises in childhood in response to vigorous sporting activity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469(11): 3229–3240.

Chakraverty

Snelling

. Anterior hip pain – have you considered femoroacetabular impingement? Int J Osteopath Med 2012; 15(1): 22–27.

Mardones

Gonzalez

Chen

. Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: evaluation of the effect of the size of the resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(2): 273–279.

Ilizaliturri

Jr . Complications of arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement treatment: a review. Clin Orthop 2009; 467(3): 760–768.

Byrd

. Complications associated with hip arthroscopy. In: Byrd

(ed.) Operative hip arthroscopy. New York: Springer, 2005, pp.229–235.

Muldoon

Padgett

Sweet

. Femoral neck stress fractures and metabolic bone disease. J Orthop Trauma 2001; 15(3): 181–185.

Fazzalari

. Trabecular microfracture. Calcif Tissue Int 1993; 53(1): S143–S147.

Burr

Forwood

Fyhrie

. Bone microdamage and skeletal fragility in osteoporotic and stress fractures. J Bone Miner Res 1997; 12(1): 6–15.

Mikhail

Vaswani

Aloia

. Racial differences in femoral dimensions and their relation to hip fracture. Osteoporosis Int 1996; 6(1): 22–24.

10.

Gnudi

Ripamonti

Gualtieri

. Geometry of proximal femur in the prediction of hip fracture in osteoporotic women. Br J Radiol 1999; 72(860): 729–733.

11.

Dinçel

Şengelen

Sepici

. The association of proximal femur geometry with hip fracture risk. Clin Anat 2008; 21(6): 575–580.

12.

Cheng

Lowet

Boonen

. Assessment of the strength of proximal femur in vitro: relationship to femoral bone mineral density and femoral geometry. Bone 1997; 20(3): 213–218.

13.

Bergmann

Deuretzbacher

Heller

. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001; 34(7): 859–871.

14.

Masjedi

Nightingale

Azimi

. The three-dimensional relationship between acetabular rim morphology and the severity of femoral cam lesions. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B(3): 314–319.

15.

Masjedi

Azimi

Nightingale

. A method of assessing the severity of cam type femoro-acetabular impingement in three dimensions. Hip Int 2012; 22(6): 677–682.

16.

Neumann

Cui

Siebenrock

. Impingement-free hip motion: the ‘normal’ angle alpha after osteochondroplasty. Clin Orthop 2009; 467(3): 699–703.

17.

Masjedi

Marquardt

Drummond

. Cam type femoro-acetabular impingement: quantifying the diagnosis using three dimensional head-neck ratios. Skeletal Radiol 2013; 42(3): 329–333.

18.

Lakes

Katz

Sternstein

. Viscoelastic properties of wet cortical bone – I. Torsional and biaxial studies. J Biomech 1979; 12(9): 657–678.

19.

Draughn

. Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999.

20.

Zioupos

. Accumulation of in-vivo fatigue microdamage and its relation to biomechanical properties in ageing human cortical bone. J Microsc 2001; 201(2): 270–278.

21.

Davis

Olsen

Zdero

. A biomechanical and finite element analysis of femoral neck notching during hip resurfacing. J Biomech Eng 2009; 131(4): 041002.

22.

Wijdicks

Balldin

Jansson

. Cam lesion femoral osteoplasty: in vitro biomechanical evaluation of iatrogenic femoral cortical notching and risk of neck fracture. Arthroscopy 2013; 29(10): 1608–1614.

23.

Landsman

Chang

. Can synthetic bone models approximate the mechanical properties of cadaveric first metatarsal bone? J Foot Ankle Surg 1998; 37(2): 122–127; discussion 172.

24.

Edwards

Gillette

Thomas

. Internal femoral forces and moments during running: implications for stress fracture development. Clin Biomech 2008; 23(10): 1269–1278.

25.

Masjedi

Tan

Jaskaranjit

. Use of robotic technology in cam femoroacetabular impingement corrective surgery. Int J Med Robot 2013; 9(1): 23–28.