Association of Idiopathic Cam Morphology With Femoral and Acetabular Version: Analysis of 986 Cadaveric Hips

Abstract

Background:

Studies have correlated symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with femoral retroversion and cam lesions.

Purpose:

To investigate any association between femoral and acetabular versions with cam deformity in a largely asymptomatic population.

Study Design:

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 986 cadaveric hips were selected from a historical osteologic collection. Each hip was assessed to determine the femoral and acetabular versions, anterior offset, and alpha angle. Cam morphology was defined as an alpha angle >60°. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between age, femoral version, acetabular version, and either alpha angle or anterior femoral offset.

Results:

The mean alpha angle and anterior offset for the sample population were 48.1°± 10.4° and 0.77 ± 0.17 cm, respectively, with cam morphology in 149 of the 986 (15.1%) specimens. No significant difference was observed between hips with and without cam morphology with respect to the femoral (10.8°± 10° vs 10.3°± 9.6°; P = .58) or acetabular versions (17.4°± 6° vs 18.2°± 6.3°; P = .14). Multiple regression analysis did not demonstrate an association between the femoral or acetabular versions and the alpha angle, and it showed a small association between the increasing femoral and acetabular versions and a decreased anterior femoral offset (both P < .01).

Conclusion:

In a large random sample of cadaveric hips, cam morphology was not associated with femoral or acetabular retroversion. Combined with the existing literature, these findings suggest that retroversion is not associated with cam development.

Clinical Relevance:

This study provides insight into the development of cam morphology, which may eventually aid in the evaluation and treatment of FAI.

Keywords

acetabular retroversion cam deformity cam morphology femoroacetabular impingement femoral retroversion

Cam morphology of the femoral neck has a reported prevalence of 15% in the asymptomatic population.^13,15,19 While there are well-recognized causes of secondary cam morphology—including slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), Legg-Calves-Perthes disease, and posttraumatic changes—the cause of idiopathic cam morphology remains incompletely understood.³⁰ Some evidence supports an association between idiopathic cam morphology development during adolescence associated with vigorous sporting activity.^{3,33,40,41,46} Furthermore, while underlying hip morphology has been investigated as a risk factor for increased physeal shear stress and SCFE,^10,12,37 limited data are available on the role of hip parameters in the development of cam deformity. Previous work investigating spinopelvic parameters associated with cam morphology has focused on pelvic incidence, alpha angle, and femoral neck-shaft angle.^14,34,47 Specifically, cadaveric studies have associated a decreased pelvic incidence with cam morphology, theorizing compensation using an anterior pelvic tilt leading to dynamic acetabular over coverage and recurrent impingement.^11,29,34,45

Relative femoral and acetabular retroversion have not been thoroughly investigated for their association with cam morphology. The femoral version is an essential hip parameter utilized throughout managing femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), especially during preoperative planning. Patients with symptomatic FAI have abnormal femoral version rates of up to 52%, with 17% of these abnormalities being severe.^4,24 In addition, the acetabular version is abnormal in 31% of patients with FAI.⁴ However, the question remains whether these parameters are associated with the initial development of the cam deformity or just the presence of impingement symptoms.

This study aimed to investigate the association between femoral and acetabular versions with cam deformity in a randomly sampled and presumably largely asymptomatic population. Based on previous smaller studies, we hypothesized that relative femoral retroversion would be associated with cam deformity.

Methods

Institutional review board approval was not required for this study. We utilized cadaveric specimens from the Hamann-Todd Osteologic Collection at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. The collection contains approximately 3000 complete, disarticulated human skeletons collected between 1912 and 1938 with associated demographic information—including age and ethnicity. We randomly selected 986 paired pelvises and femora for measurement. Any specimens with evidence of gross deformity or pathology—eg, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, posttraumatic changes, significant degenerative changes, or Legg-Calves-Perthes disease—were excluded from the study. There were 2 time points where the specimens could be excluded: during the initial data collection and imaging due to gross deformity or by additional review of images. All exclusions were made by the senior resident (R.T.Y.) or an orthopaedic resident (W.Z.M.) doing a full-year research fellowship focused on osteology. Each specimen was then assessed to determine the acetabular version, femoral version, alpha angle, and anterior offset. The measurements were obtained from digital images generated from specimens positioned by the methods below and analyzed using ImageJ software (US National Institutes of Health).

Measurements

The acetabular version was measured in a standardized fashion after reconstructing the pelvises using a previously published method.^23,28,42 The 2 hemipelves and sacrum were reassembled and secured using rubber bands with a uniform 12-mm piece of foam used to represent the pubic symphysis (Figure 1). After reassembly, the pelvis was gently positioned with the pubic crest and anterior superior iliac spines in contact with the laboratory table to reestablish the anatomic frontal plane of the pelvis.^1,28 The central acetabular version could then be directly measured with a goniometer (Prestige Medical) as the angle formed between the laboratory table (representing the horizontal plane) and a line connecting the mid aspects of the anterior and posterior acetabulum (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The central acetabular version (av) is defined as the complement of the angle formed between the laboratory table (representing the horizontal plane) and a line connecting the anterior and posterior ridges of the acetabulum.

Attention was then turned to the matching femora to measure the femoral version, alpha angle, and anterior offset. The femoral version was directly measured from specimens using the Kingsley-Olmsted method.^21,26,44 Femora were positioned in a standardized anatomic position with the posterior femoral condyles and the greater trochanter resting on the table or elevated on blocks if there was femoral retroversion. The posterior aspects of the greater trochanter and posterior condyles defined the plane of the femur. A digital photograph of the femur was taken from a craniocaudal view, an oblique craniocaudal view angled perpendicular to the femoral neck. All images were processed, and angles were measured using Image J software.

The femoral version was measured as the angle formed between the plane of the femur (represented by the plane of the wood blocks) and the axis of the femoral neck (Figure 2A). The anterior offset and the alpha angle were measured based on modifications of the original methods described by Notzli et al.^17,35,44 For anterior femoral offset, a line was drawn down the femoral neck axis, equidistant from the anterior and posterior borders of the femoral neck. Two lines were then drawn parallel to the femoral neck axis: the first line, tangential to the concavity of the anterior femoral neck, and the second, tangential to the convexity of the anterior femoral head. The anterior femoral offset was defined as the distance (in cm) of the perpendicular between these 2 lines (Figure 2B). A best-fit circle was placed over the femoral head to determine the alpha angle. The alpha angle was defined as the angle formed between the line representing the femoral neck axis and a line from the center of the best-fit circle on the femoral head to the point where the anterior cortical surface of the femoral head-neck junction first exits the best-fit circle (Figure 2C). For this study, specimens with an alpha angle >60° were considered to have a cam-type deformity.^2,3

Figure 2.

(A) Femoral version (fv) is defined as the angle formed between the plane of the full length of the femur (represented by the plane of the wood blocks) and the axis of the femoral neck. (B) The anterior femoral offset (afo) is determined based on 2 lines drawn parallel to the femoral neck axis: the first line, tangential to the concavity of the anterior femoral neck, and the second line, tangential to the convexity of the anterior femoral head. The anterior femoral offset (afo) is defined as the distance (in cm) of the perpendicular between these 2 lines.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS (IBM). Interobserver agreement was determined for all variables measured in this study through the evaluation of 20 specimens by 2 authors (W.Z.M. and R.W.L.; an orthopaedic surgery resident and an attending physician); the specimens were remeasured by an additional author (R.T.Y., an orthopaedic surgery resident) to determine the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for absolute agreement for each variable. Four weeks later, each of the 3 authors reevaluated the same 20 specimens to establish intrarater reliability (Table 1). The ICC values were interpreted as follows: <0.40 = poor; 0.40 to 0.59 = fair; 0.60 to 0.74 = good; and >0.74 = excellent.^6,39

Table 1

Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Inter- and Intrarater Reliability (n = 20 Hips)

Variable	Intrarater Reliability	Interrater Reliability
Femoral version	0.91	0.94
Acetabular version	0.88	0.88
Alpha angle	0.81	0.86
Anterior offset	0.88	0.90

Two cohorts were created based on the presence of cam deformity (alpha angle >60°). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the alpha angles, anterior offset, and femoral and acetabular versions of the hips with and without cam deformity. Femoral and acetabular versions were compared between these cohorts using the Student t test. Multiple regression analysis was also performed using age, femoral version, and acetabular version as independent variables with either alpha angle or anterior offset as the dependent variable. The level of significance for all tests was set at P < .05.

Results

The sample population comprised 685 of 986 (69.5%) White and 301 of 986 (30.5%) African American specimens. The 986 specimens demonstrated no evidence of gross deformity or pathology, including slipped capital femoral epiphysis, posttraumatic changes, significant degenerative changes, or Legg-Calves-Perthes disease. Specimens were predominantly men (840/986; 85.2%), with a mean age at death of 44.9 ± 15.2 years (range, 18-88 years).

The ICCs for each measurement demonstrated excellent agreement (Table 1). Regarding all specimens, the mean alpha angle and anterior offsets were 48.1°± 10.4° and 0.77 ± 0.17 cm, respectively. The mean femoral version was 10.4°± 9.6°, and the mean acetabular version was 18.1°± 6.3°, with a mean combined version of 28.5°± 11.5° (Table 2).

Table 2

Measurements of Cadaveric Specimens (N = 986 Hips)

Variable	Mean ± SD	Range
Alpha angle, deg	48 ± 10	24 to 88
Anterior offset, cm	0.77 ± 0.17	0 to 1.32
Femoral version, deg	10 ± 10	−19 to 39
Acetabular version, deg	18 ± 6	0 to 40
Combined version, deg	29 ± 12	−7 to 69

Using the definition of an alpha angle >60°, 149 of 986 (15.1%) specimens were found to have a cam deformity. There were no statistically significant differences between the cohorts with and without cam deformity with respect to the femoral version (10.8°± 10° vs 10.3°± 9.6°; P = .58), acetabular version (17.4°± 6° vs 18.2°± 6.3°; P = .14), or combined version (28.2°± 11.5° vs 28.5°± 11.5°; P = .95).

The results of the multiple regression analysis with the acetabular version, femoral version, and age as independent variables and the alpha angle or anterior offset as the dependent variable are depicted in Table 3. No statistically significant association was found between the femoral version, acetabular version, and alpha angle. Only increasing age demonstrated a significant association with increasing the alpha angle (P < .01). Multiple regression analysis showed a weak but significant association between increasing femoral and acetabular versions and decreased anterior offset (r = −0.283 and −0.083, respectively; P < .01).

Table 3

Results of Regression Analyses of Femoral Version, Acetabular Version, and Age

Independent Variable	Alpha Angle		Anterior Femoral Offset
Independent Variable	Std β^a	Unstd β^b (95% CI)	Std β^a	Unstd β^b (95% CI)
Age	0.235	0.161 (0.119 to 0.203)^c	−0.035	−0.0004 (–0.001 to 0.0003)
Femoral version	0.047	0.051 (–0.015 to 0.117)	−0.283	−0.005 (−0.006 to −0.004)^c
Acetabular version	−0.018	−0.030 (–0.133 to 0.072)	−0.087	−0.002 (−0.004 to −0.001)^c

Standardized (std) beta coefficients reflect how many SDs a dependent variable will change for every SD increase in the independent variable, allowing for a direct comparison of the relative effects of independent variables.

Unstandardized (unstd) beta coefficients reflect the mean change in the dependent variable with 1 unit of increase in the independent variable when other independent variables are controlled.

P < .01; P > .05 for the alpha angle vs the femoral and acetabular versions and for the anterior femoral offset vs age.

Discussion

The findings of our study demonstrate that acetabular and femoral retroversion are not associated with cam morphology in a large, asymptomatic population. Within the study, we found a 15.1% (149/986) prevalence of cam deformity. No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 cohorts with and without cam deformity with respect to the mean femoral (10.8°± 10° vs 10.3°± 9.6°; P = .58) or acetabular version (17.4°± 6° vs 18.2°± 6.3°; P = .14). Multiple regression analysis further demonstrated that acetabular and femoral versions were not associated with the alpha angle. Notably, the use of multiple regression analysis allowed us to account for any linear effects of age, and thus, we evaluated the impact of femoral and acetabular versions on cam deformity parameters more objectively. The analysis did reveal a weak association between both increasing femoral and acetabular versions with decreased anterior offset (standardized β = −0.283; P < .01 and standardized β = −0.087; P < .01, respectively), which is opposite to the correlation noted in symptomatic populations.

As indicated by the lack of association within our study, idiopathic cam development is likely not driven by the presence of abnormal femoral or acetabular versions. Instead, growing evidence supports that idiopathic cam morphology develops during adolescence through the extension of the capital femoral epiphysis down the anterosuperior femoral neck and is associated with vigorous sporting activity.^3,33,40,41 This cupping of the epiphysis around the femoral neck metaphysis is temporally associated with decreasing the relative size of the epiphyseal tubercle, a keystone like projection of the epiphysis in to the metaphysis, which provides intrinsic physeal stability.^{20,25,27,31,32,36,43} The additional stability provided by this cupping may be a physiologic adaptive response to resist physeal shear stress that would otherwise put the hip at risk for slipped capital femoral epiphysis.

Previous studies showing an association between cam deformity and relative femoral retroversion were performed mainly in smaller groups of symptomatic patients.^8,17 Dall’Oca et al⁸ reported on 21 patients with symptomatic FAI and found that those with cam impingement had relative femoral retroversion compared with norms in the published literature. Ito et al¹⁷ investigated 24 patients with symptomatic FAI and reported relative femoral retroversion compared with 24 age-matched asymptomatic controls. Subsequent studies have highlighted that femoral retroversion is the main underlying factor for the decreased internal rotation observed in patients with FAI and cam-type deformities.^5,22 There has also been controversy as to whether femoral retroversion is associated with poorer outcomes after arthroscopic femoral head-neck osteoplasty.^9,16 However, there has been limited study of the association between femoral and acetabular versions with cam morphology in asymptomatic patients, possibly because of the challenges of imaging the distal femur to obtain femoral version measurements.

In a cadaveric study, Schaver et al³⁸ demonstrated that patients with cam deformities had more femoral anteversion and that the alpha angle was positively associated with increasing femoral anteversion. Their study had important methodological differences from the current paper. First, the femur was positioned resting on the proximal femoral shaft, rather than the greater trochanter as done in this study, which essentially extends the femoral neck and would be expected to decrease the version compared with our technique. Indeed, their mean version was 8.5° versus 10.4° in our study. Second, they measured the alpha angle on an axial view, where it is more difficult to visualize, while we utilized a view that more closely approximates the position used to clinically measure the alpha angle as originally described by Notzli et al.²² Third, they did not account for demographic characteristics, while our study noted an association between the alpha angle and age and was able to adjust for it in the multiple regression analysis. Finally, only our study additionally accounts for the acetabular version, which allows for the consideration of the combined version of the femur and acetabulum.

In addition to the alpha angle, we also utilized another marker of cam deformity, decreased anterior femoral offset,⁷ to investigate for possible associations with femoral or acetabular retroversion. Multiple regression analysis revealed a small but significant association between increases in femoral or acetabular versions and decreasing anterior offset (P < .01 for both). When beta coefficients were standardized, it was also revealed that the anterior offset had a much larger association with the femoral version than the acetabular version. This data suggested that increasing version is associated with cam deformity based on a decreased anterior offset and merits further clinical investigation. However, the more important finding is the absence of an association between retroversion and cam-type deformity.

We believe that the findings of no association between femoral and acetabular versions with cam morphology defined by the alpha angle contrast with the limited existing clinical literature because of our use of a random sample population, which is largely asymptomatic. Our data suggest that morphologic parameters for mechanical hip impingement, such as femoral and acetabular retroversion, do not increase the risk of cam morphology. Instead, we believe that relative femoral or acetabular retroversion increases the risk that existing cam morphology will become symptomatic by decreasing the range of motion before impingement (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

The absence of association between cam deformity and relative femoral/acetabular retroversion in this largely asymptomatic sample population suggests that the development of idiopathic cam morphology is not significantly influenced by relative retroversion. Instead, we propose that relative retroversion increases the risk that idiopathic cam deformity becomes symptomatic, as patients are more likely to mechanically impinge. Please also note that relative retroversion may be a risk factor for symptomatic disease, but we do not consider it a requirement.

Limitations

There are limitations to our study, primarily stemming from the use of a historical cadaveric collection. Although this collection provided us a unique opportunity for direct measurement of femoral and acetabular versions that would otherwise be difficult to obtain, the lack of clinical data requires assumptions to be made about the prevalence of hip pain in this population. Although we cannot confirm the absence of hip pain in each of the specimens during life, the Hamann-Todd Collection essentially represents a random sample population from the Cleveland, Ohio, area during the early 20th century, and we believe that it is a reasonable assumption that most of the specimens came from asymptomatic patients, similar to any random sample population. Furthermore, the incidence of cam deformity of 15.2% in our study is consistent with previous studies of asymptomatic populations.^13,15 However, given that this study population is from the 20th century, the applicability to cam development in more contemporary populations may be limited. The osteologic collection is limited to White and African American cadaveric specimens. Therefore, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding other racial groups. Disarticulated cadaveric specimens also present a risk for inaccuracy during the required reassembly of the pelvis to measure the acetabular version. To limit the risk of inaccuracy, we utilized a previously published, standardized technique for reassembly of the sacrum and hemipelvis,^23,28,42 resulting in mean acetabular version measurements that were similar to the population norms of approximately¹⁸ 15° to 20° degrees.

Conclusion

In a large random sample population, cam morphology was not associated with femoral or acetabular retroversion. Combined with the existing literature, these findings suggest that retroversion is not associated with cam development. This study provides insight into the development of cam morphology, which may eventually aid in the evaluation and treatment of FAI. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in a clinical setting. A more thorough understanding of the cause of cam deformity and the risk factors for symptomatic disease may improve the evaluation of patients with FAI and the selection of patients for intervention.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Lyman Jellema, former collections manager at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, for his assistance and expertise in navigating the Hamann Todd Osteological Collection.

Final revision submitted June 6, 2023; accepted July 14, 2023.

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: R.T.Y. has received a grant from NuVasive; education payments from Medical Device Business Services; and hospitality from Alphatec Spine, Globus Medical, Medacta, and Medtronic. K.X. has received education payments from Fortis Surgical. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Ethical approval was not sought for the present study.

References

Abel

Sutherland

Wenger

Mubarak

. Evaluation of CT scans and 3-D reformatted images for quantitative assessment of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994;14(1):48-53.

Agricola

Heijboer

Bierma-Zeinstra

, et al. Cam impingement causes osteoarthritis of the hip: a nationwide prospective cohort study (CHECK). Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(6):918-923.

Agricola

Heijboer

Ginai

, et al. A cam deformity is gradually acquired during skeletal maturation in adolescent and young male soccer players: a prospective study with minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(4):798-806.

Arshad

Maughan

Sunil Kumar

, et al. Over one third of patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement display femoral or acetabular version abnormalities. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(9):2825-2836.

Audenaert

Peeters

Vigneron

Baelde

Pattyn

. Hip morphological characteristics and range of internal rotation in femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(6):1329-1336.

Cicchetti

Sparrow

. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic. 1981;86(2):127-137.

Collins

Beutel

Liu

Feldman

Otsuka

. The etiology of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement: a cadaveric study. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017;37(3):178-183.

Dall’Oca

Maluta

Micheloni

, et al. Femoroacetabular impingement: biomechanical and dynamic considerations. Acta Biomed. 2014;85Suppl 2:46-51.

Fabricant

Fields

Taylor

, et al. The effect of femoral and acetabular version on clinical outcomes after arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(7):537-543.

10.

Gebhart

Bohl

Weinberg

Cooperman

Liu

. Pelvic incidence and acetabular version in slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35(6):565-570.

11.

Gebhart

Streit

Bedi

, et al. Correlation of pelvic incidence with cam and pincer lesions. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(11):2649-2653.

12.

Gelberman

Cohen

Shaw

, et al. The association of femoral retroversion with slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68(7):1000-1007.

13.

Gosvig

Jacobsen

Sonne-Holm

Gebuhr

. The prevalence of cam-type deformity of the hip joint: a survey of 4151 subjects of the Copenhagen Osteoarthritis Study. Acta Radiol. 2008;49(4):436-441.

14.

Grammatopoulos

Speirs

KCG

, et al. Acetabular and spino-pelvic morphologies are different in subjects with symptomatic cam femoro-acetabular impingement. J Orthop Res. 2018;36(7):1840-1848.

15.

Hack

Di Primio

Rakhra

Beaule

. Prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(14):2436-2444.

16.

Hartigan

Perets

Walsh

, et al. Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery in patients with femoral retroversion: a matched study to patients with normal femoral anteversion. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(10):2325967117732726.

17.

Ito

Minka

II Leunig

Werlen

Ganz

. Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. A MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(2):171-176.

18.

Jamali

Mladenov

Meyer

, et al. Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs to assess acetabular retroversion: high validity of the “cross-over-sign”. J Orthop Res. 2007;25(6):758-765.

19.

Jung

Restrepo

Hellman

, et al. The prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular deformity in asymptomatic adults. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(10):1303-1307.

20.

Kiapour

Maranho

Kim

Novais

. Relative contribution of epiphyseal tubercle and peripheral cupping to capital femoral epiphysis stability during daily activities. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(7):1571-1579.

21.

Kingsley

Olmsted

. A study to determine the angle of anteversion of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1948;30A(3):745-751.

22.

Kraeutler

Chadayammuri

Garabekyan

Mei-Dan

. Femoral version abnormalities significantly outweigh effect of cam impingement on hip internal rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(3):205-210.

23.

Krebs

Incavo

Shields

. The anatomy of the acetabulum: what is normal? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(4):868-875.

24.

Lerch

Todorski

IAS

Steppacher

, et al. Prevalence of femoral and acetabular version abnormalities in patients with symptomatic hip disease: a controlled study of 538 hips. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(1):122-134.

25.

Liu

Armstrong

Levine

, et al. An anatomic study of the epiphyseal tubercle and its importance in the pathogenesis of slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(6):e341-e348.

26.

Liu

Toogood

Hart

Davy

Cooperman

. The effect of varus and valgus osteotomies on femoral version. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009;29(7):666-675.

27.

Maranho

Ferrer

Kim

Miller

Novais

. Predicting risk of contralateral slip in unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis: posterior epiphyseal tilt increases and superior epiphyseal extension reduces risk. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(3):209-217.

28.

Maruyama

Feinberg

Capello

D’Antonio

. The Frank Stinchfield award: morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001(393):52-65.

29.

Morris

Fowers

Yuh

, et al. Decreasing pelvic incidence is associated with greater risk of cam morphology. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(9):387-392.

30.

Morris

Liu

Salata

Voos

. Origin of cam morphology in femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(2):478-486.

31.

Morris

Liu

Marshall

Maranho

Novais

. Capital femoral epiphyseal cupping and extension may be protective in slipped capital femoral epiphysis: a dual-center matching cohort study. J Pediatr Orthop. 2020;40(7):334-339.

32.

Morris

Napora

Conry

Liu

. Capital femoral epiphyseal extension may confer physeal stability in slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39(3):119-124.

33.

Morris

Weinberg

Gebhart

Cooperman

Liu

. Capital femoral growth plate extension predicts cam morphology in a longitudinal radiographic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(10):805-812.

34.

KCG

Lamontagne

Jeffers

JRT

Grammatopoulos

Beaulé

. Anatomic predictors of sagittal hip and pelvic motions in patients with a cam deformity. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(6):1331-1342.

35.

Notzli

Wyss

Stoecklin

, et al. The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(4):556-560.

36.

Novais

Maranho

Kim

Kiapour

. Age- and sex-specific morphologic variations of capital femoral epiphysis growth in children and adolescents without hip disorders. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(6):2325967118781579.

37.

Pritchett

Perdue

. Mechanical factors in slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1988;8(4):385-388.

38.

Schaver

Oshodi

Glass

, et al. Cam morphology is associated with increased femoral version: findings from a collection of 1,321 cadaveric femurs. Arthroscopy. 2022;38(3):831-836.

39.

Shrout

Fleiss

. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-428.

40.

Siebenrock

Behning

Mamisch

Schwab

. Growth plate alteration precedes cam-type deformity in elite basketball players. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(4):1084-1091.

41.

Siebenrock

Ferner

Noble

, et al. 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.

42.

Tague

. Variation in pelvic size between males and females. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1989;80(1):59-71.

43.

Tayton

. The epiphyseal tubercle in adolescent hips. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(4):416-419.

44.

Toogood

Skalak

Cooperman

. Proximal femoral anatomy in the normal human population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(4):876-885.

45.

Weinberg

Gebhart

Liu

Salata

. Radiographic signs of femoroacetabular impingement are associated with decreased pelvic incidence. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(5):806-813.

46.

Westermann

Scott

Schaver

, et al. Activity level and sport type in adolescents correlate with the development of cam morphology. JBJS Open Access. 2021;6(4).

47.

Yin

Zhang

Liang

, et al. The evaluation of sagittal pelvic-femoral kinematics in patients with cam-type femoracetabular impingement. Orthop Surg. 2021;13(6):1748-1754.