Pim van Klij

Leistenschmerzen sind ein häufiges und oft schwer zu behandelndes Problem bei jungen Sportler*innen. Die komplexe Anatomie der Leiste erschwert sowohl die Diagnose als auch die Therapie. Obwohl Verletzungen der Adduktoren häufig vorkommen, müssen auch zahlreiche andere Ursachen sorgfältig in Betracht gezogen werden.

Due to typographic mistakes made by the editorial office, several corrections have been made.The original article has been corrected.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to (1) investigate whether radiographic and clinical parameters, which influence how stresses during sporting activities act on the proximal femur, are associated with cam morphology or (2) precede cam morphology development.Methods: Young male football players participated at baseline (n = 89, 12–19 years of age), 2.5‐year (n = 63) and 5‐year follow‐up (n = 49). Standardized anteroposterior pelvic and frog‐leg lateral radiographs were obtained at each time‐point. Cam morphology was quantified by an alpha angle ≥ 60°, and large cam morphology ≥ 78°. The neck–shaft angle (NSA), epiphyseal extension (EE), lateral center–edge angle (LCEA) and hip internal rotation (IR) were also measured. Cross‐sectional associations between NSA, EE, LCEA and IR and (large) cam morphology were studied at all time‐points. To study whether these variables preceded cam morphology development, hips without cam morphology at baseline were studied prospectively.Results: A lower NSA, a higher EE and limited IR were consistently associated with cam morphology at all three time‐points. These differences were more pronounced in hips with large cam morphology. No association between cam morphology and the LCEA was found. None of the parameters studied preceded cam morphology development.Conclusion: Cam morphology developed simultaneously with a varus orientation, growth plate extension towards the femoral neck and limited hip internal rotation. These parameters did not precede cam morphology development. The hip parameters studied cannot be used to identify individuals at risk of developing cam morphology.Level of Evidence: Level II.

Background: The alpha angle is the most often used measure to classify cam morphology. There is currently no agreement on which alpha angle threshold value to use. Purpose: To systematically investigate the different alpha angle threshold values used for defining cam morphology in studies aiming to identify this threshold and to determine whether data are consistent enough to suggest an alpha angle threshold to classify cam morphology. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The Embase, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar databases were searched from database inception to February 28, 2019. Studies aiming at identifying an alpha angle threshold to classify cam morphology were eligible for inclusion. Results: We included 4 case-control studies, 10 cohort studies, and 1 finite-element study from 2437 identified publications. Studies (n = 3) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to distinguish asymptomatic people from patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome consistently observed alpha angle thresholds between 57° and 60°. A 60° threshold was also found to best discriminate between hips with and without cam morphology in a large cohort study based on a bimodal distribution of the alpha angle. Studies (n = 8) using the upper limit of the 95% reference interval as threshold proposed a wide overall threshold range between 58° and 93°. When stratified by sex, thresholds between 63° and 93° in male patients and between 58° and 94° in female patients were reported. Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, mostly based on studies using ROC curve analysis, an alpha angle threshold of ≥60° is currently the most appropriate to classify cam morphology. Further research is required to fully validate this threshold.

Background: Conflicting and limited high‐quality prospective data are available on the associations between cam morphology and hip and groin symptoms and range of motion (ROM).Objectives: This cross‐sectional cohort study investigated associations between cam morphology presence, size and duration and symptoms and ROM.Methods: Academy male football players (n = 49, 17‐24 years) were included. Standardized antero‐posterior pelvic and frog‐leg lateral radiographs were obtained at baseline, 2.5‐ and 5‐year follow‐up. The femoral head‐neck junction was quantified by: Visual score. Cam morphology (flattening or prominence), large cam (prominence). Alpha angle. Cam morphology (≥60°), large cam (≥78°). Cam morphology duration was defined as long (first present at baseline) or short (only from 2.5‐ to 5‐year follow‐up). Current symptoms at 5‐year follow‐up were assessed using a hip and groin pain question and by the “Hip and Groin Outcome Score” (HAGOS). HAGOS scores were categorized into: most symptoms (≥2 domains in lowest interquartile range [IQR]), least symptoms (≥2 domains in highest IQR). Hip ROM was measured by goniometry at 5‐year follow‐up.Results: Large cam morphology based on visual score was associated with hip and groin pain (23.8% vs. 7.1%, OR: 3.17, CI: [1.15‐8.70], P = .026), but not with HAGOS scores. Cam morphology presence, size, and duration were associated with limited flexion of around 6° and/or 3° to 6° for internal rotation.Conclusion: Cam morphology presence, size, and duration were associated with limited hip flexion and/or internal rotation, but differences might not exceed the minimal clinical important difference. Whether cam morphology results in symptoms is uncertain.

There is no agreement on how to classify, define or diagnose hip-related pain—a common cause of hip and groin pain in young and middle-aged active adults. This complicates the work of clinicians and researchers. The International Hip-related Pain Research Network consensus group met in November 2018 in Zurich aiming to make recommendations on how to classify, define and diagnose hip disease in young and middle-aged active adults with hip-related pain as the main symptom. Prior to the meeting we performed a scoping review of electronic databases in June 2018 to determine the definition, epidemiology and diagnosis of hip conditions in young and middle-aged active adults presenting with hip-related pain. We developed and presented evidence-based statements for these to a panel of 37 experts for discussion and consensus agreement. Both non-musculoskeletal and serious hip pathological conditions (eg, tumours, infections, stress fractures, slipped capital femoral epiphysis), as well as competing musculoskeletal conditions (eg, lumbar spine) should be excluded when diagnosing hip-related pain in young and middle-aged active adults. The most common hip conditions in young and middle-aged active adults presenting with hip-related pain are: (1) femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome, (2) acetabular dysplasia and/or hip instability and (3) other conditions without a distinct osseous morphology (labral, chondral and/or ligamentum teres conditions), and that these terms are used in research and clinical practice. Clinical examination and diagnostic imaging have limited diagnostic utility; a comprehensive approach is therefore essential. A negative flexion–adduction–internal rotation test helps rule out hip-related pain although its clinical utility is limited. Anteroposterior pelvis and lateral femoral head–neck radiographs are the initial diagnostic imaging of choice—advanced imaging should be performed only when requiring additional detail of bony or soft-tissue morphology (eg, for definitive diagnosis, research setting or when planning surgery). We recommend clear, detailed and consistent methodology of bony morphology outcome measures (definition, measurement and statistical reporting) in research. Future research on conditions with hip-related pain as the main symptom should include high-quality prospective studies on aetiology and prognosis. The most common hip conditions in active adults presenting with hip-related pain are: (1) FAI syndrome, (2) acetabular dysplasia and/or hip instability and (3) other conditions without distinct osseous morphology including labral, chondral and/or ligamentum teres conditions. The last category should not be confused with the incidental imaging findings of labral, chondral and/or ligamentum teres pathology in asymptomatic people. Future research should refine our current recommendations by determining the clinical utility of clinical examination and diagnostic imaging in prospective studies.