TY - JOUR
T1 - Cam morphology but neither acetabular dysplasia nor pincer morphology is associated with osteophytosis throughout the hip: findings from a cross-sectional study in UK Biobank
AU - Faber, Benjamin G.
AU - Ebsim, Raja
AU - Saunders, Fiona R.
AU - Frysz, Monika
AU - Gregory, Jennifer S.
AU - Aspden, Richard M.
AU - Harvey, N.
AU - Smith, George Davey
AU - Cootes, Timothy
AU - Lindner, Claudia
AU - Tobias, Jonathan H.
N1 - Funding Information:
BGF is supported by a Medical Research Council (MRC) clinical research training fellowship (MR/S021280/1). RE, MF, FS are supported, and this work is funded by a Wellcome Trust collaborative award (reference number 209233). CL was funded by the MRC, UK (MR/S00405X/1). NCH acknowledges support from the MRC and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton . BGF, MF, GDS & JHT work in the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, which is supported by the MRC (MC_UU_00,011/1). No funders had any role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s)
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Objectives: To examine whether acetabular dysplasia (AD), cam and/or pincer morphology are associated with radiographic hip osteoarthritis (rHOA) and hip pain in UK Biobank (UKB) and, if so, what distribution of osteophytes is observed. Design: Participants from UKB with a left hip dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan had alpha angle (AA), lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) and joint space narrowing (JSN) derived automatically. Cam and pincer morphology, and AD were defined using AA and LCEA. Osteophytes were measured manually and rHOA grades were calculated from JSN and osteophyte measures. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships between these hip morphologies and rHOA, osteophytes, JSN, and hip pain. Results: 6,807 individuals were selected (mean age: 62.7; 3382/3425 males/females). Cam morphology was more prevalent in males than females (15.4% and 1.8% respectively). In males, cam morphology was associated with rHOA [OR 3.20 (95% CI 2.41–4.25)], JSN [1.53 (1.24–1.88)], and acetabular [1.87 (1.48–2.36)], superior [1.94 (1.45–2.57)] and inferior [4.75 (3.44–6.57)] femoral osteophytes, and hip pain [1.48 (1.05–2.09)]. Broadly similar associations were seen in females, but with weaker statistical evidence. Neither pincer morphology nor AD showed any associations with rHOA or hip pain. Conclusions: Cam morphology was predominantly seen in males in whom it was associated with rHOA and hip pain. In males and females, cam morphology was associated with inferior femoral head osteophytes more strongly than those at the superior femoral head and acetabulum. Further studies are justified to characterise the biomechanical disturbances associated with cam morphology, underlying the observed osteophyte distribution.
AB - Objectives: To examine whether acetabular dysplasia (AD), cam and/or pincer morphology are associated with radiographic hip osteoarthritis (rHOA) and hip pain in UK Biobank (UKB) and, if so, what distribution of osteophytes is observed. Design: Participants from UKB with a left hip dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan had alpha angle (AA), lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) and joint space narrowing (JSN) derived automatically. Cam and pincer morphology, and AD were defined using AA and LCEA. Osteophytes were measured manually and rHOA grades were calculated from JSN and osteophyte measures. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships between these hip morphologies and rHOA, osteophytes, JSN, and hip pain. Results: 6,807 individuals were selected (mean age: 62.7; 3382/3425 males/females). Cam morphology was more prevalent in males than females (15.4% and 1.8% respectively). In males, cam morphology was associated with rHOA [OR 3.20 (95% CI 2.41–4.25)], JSN [1.53 (1.24–1.88)], and acetabular [1.87 (1.48–2.36)], superior [1.94 (1.45–2.57)] and inferior [4.75 (3.44–6.57)] femoral osteophytes, and hip pain [1.48 (1.05–2.09)]. Broadly similar associations were seen in females, but with weaker statistical evidence. Neither pincer morphology nor AD showed any associations with rHOA or hip pain. Conclusions: Cam morphology was predominantly seen in males in whom it was associated with rHOA and hip pain. In males and females, cam morphology was associated with inferior femoral head osteophytes more strongly than those at the superior femoral head and acetabulum. Further studies are justified to characterise the biomechanical disturbances associated with cam morphology, underlying the observed osteophyte distribution.
KW - Absorptiometry, Photon
KW - Arthralgia/etiology
KW - Cohort Studies
KW - Cross-Sectional Studies
KW - Female
KW - Hip Dislocation/diagnostic imaging
KW - Hip Joint/diagnostic imaging
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Osteoarthritis, Hip/diagnostic imaging
KW - Osteophyte/diagnostic imaging
KW - Risk Factors
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/f043e2a2-9668-39b2-a542-0989965d7a44/
U2 - 10.1016/j.joca.2021.08.002
DO - 10.1016/j.joca.2021.08.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 34419604
SN - 1063-4584
VL - 29
SP - 1521
EP - 1529
JO - Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
JF - Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
IS - 11
ER -