Abstract
Background:
Femoroacetabular Impingement (FAI) is a common cause of hip pain in adolescent patients. Clinical exam and radiographic markers, such as α angle and lateral center edge angle (LCEA), are commonly used to aid in the diagnosis of this condition. The purpose of this study was to correlate preoperative α angle and LCEA with preoperative symptoms, intraoperative findings, and preoperative and postoperative patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the adolescent patient.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted for all patients who underwent operative intervention for FAI at an academic institution over an 11-year period. Preoperative imaging was obtained and measured for LCEA and α angle. PROs (modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and UCLA score) were collected preoperatively, as well as 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively. Operative intervention was either open surgical hip dislocation or arthroscopic, and intraoperative disease was graded using the Beck Classification system. Patients with minimum 1-year follow-up were included in statistical analysis.
Results:
There were 86 hips (64 female hips) included with an average age of 16.3 years (range, 10.4 to 20.5 y), with an average of 37 months of follow-up. There was no correlation between severity of preoperative symptoms or difference between pre and postoperative PROs for both α angle and LCEA. Overall, significant improvement was noted in modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and UCLA Score (P<0.001 for each). Independent of preoperative symptoms, increased α angle correlated with more severe intraoperative labral disease (P<0.001), and longer length of labral tear (Corr 0.295, P<0.01). Femoral head and acetabular articular cartilage damage did not correlate with α angle or LCEA, nor did overall severity of disease.
Conclusions:
In adolescent patients with FAI, increased α angle was found to significantly correlate with labral pathology, including increased length of tear and severity of disease, irrespective of preoperative symptoms or postoperative patient reported outcomes.
Level of Evidence:
Level III—retrospective.
Key Words: femoroacetabular impingement, labral disease, α angle, lateral center edge angle, patient reported outcomes
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a common cause of hip pain in the adolescent athlete.1 Clinical exam and radiographic markers, such as α angle and lateral center edge angle (LCEA) of Wiberg, are commonly used to aid in the diagnosis of this condition.2,3 The α angle is a measure of the (cam) morphology of the anterior and superior femoral head-neck junction and is defined as an angle between the femoral neck and the point at which the femoral head loses its sphericity.4 The loss of the sphericity, or presence of a cam lesion, can lead to impingement between the femoral head and adjacent acetabular cartilage and labrum.5,6 Impingement can also occur due to pincer-morphology, or over coverage by the acetabulum, leading to abnormal contact between the acetabular rim and femoral head-neck junction.
In adults, α angle has been reported to correlate with preoperative symptoms and the amount of improvement after surgery.7–9 α Angles>55 degrees have been associated with hip pain, positive impingement test, and lack of internal rotation.8 Operative procedures aimed at reducing this angle to <55 degrees have been shown to lead to improved patient reported outcomes (PROs).7 Although variability may exist, preoperative and postoperative α angles have been documented in 1 population as independent predictors of PROs.9 Additional radiographic markers that have been shown to provide prognostic and treatment information include Tonnis grade, LCEA, and joint space narrowing.10–12
To date, there are no studies which correlate symptom or intraoperative disease severity with α angle or LCEA in the adolescent population. The purpose of this study was to correlate preoperative α angle and LCEA with preoperative symptoms, intraoperative findings, and preoperative and postoperative PROs in the adolescent patient; while evaluating preoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes with operative intervention in this cohort.
METHODS
Design
This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for all patients who underwent operative management for FAI at a single institution over an 11-year period from January 1, 2008 to February 1, 2019. Before data collection, IRB approval was obtained.
Patients
We originally identified a total of 128 hips from this group. Patients were included if they were between the ages of 10 and 21, had a diagnosis of FAI (as determined by 1 of 3 surgeons and based on clinical and radiographic data), and failed conservative management before operative intervention. Conservative management consisted of a trial of anti-inflammatory medications, activity modifications, and/or hip injection with corticosteroid. Patients were excluded if they had a prior diagnosis of either Legg-Calve-Perthes, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or had sustained a previous fracture or operation on the affected hip (19 patients). Additional patients were excluded due to missing preoperative PROs or a lack of minimum of 1-year PRO follow-up (23 patients). Each hip was analyzed as a separate entry in patients who had bilateral hip involvement. In total, 86 hips were included in this study.
Radiographic Measurements
An AP pelvis, 45 degrees Dunn view or Frog-Leg Lateral, and magnetic resonance imaging were obtained preoperatively. Radiograph techniques were utilized as described by Clohisy et al.13 On the AP pelvis, LCEA was measured via the Sectra PACS system (Sectra, Linköping, Sweden) utilizing the hip dysplasia tool to ensure appropriate leveling of the pelvis and center of the femoral head. The LCEA was defined as the angle subtended between a vertical line and a line from the center of the femoral head (based on best fit circle) and the lateral edge of the sourcil. The α angle was measured on the Dunn radiograph, as previously validated, by a single reviewer using the method described by Notzli and colleagues.2,14 The α angle was measured by first placing a best fit circle over the femoral head. The α angle was then defined as the angle subtended by a line along the femoral neck axis and a line from the center of the femoral head to the point on the anterosuperior head-neck junction where the neck exited from the best fit circle.
PROs
Three PROs were utilized; modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and UCLA Score. Patients were administered these surveys at the preoperative visit, and then 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively.
Surgery
Operative treatment included either open surgical hip dislocation or arthroscopic treatment by 1 of 3 fellowship trained pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. Patients most commonly underwent femoroplasty (94.2%), with concurrent labral repair in many (57%). Other procedures included are listed in Table 1. Intraoperative findings were recorded; the presence or absence of synovitis, femoral head-neck junction anatomy, and the severity of damage to the labrum, and acetabulum and femoral head was classified as outlined by Beck et al.15 Cartilage damage in each location was graded as normal (1), chondromalacia (2), debonding (3), cleavage (4), or full-thickness defect (5). Labral damage was graded as normal (1), degeneration (2), full-thickness tear (3), and detachment (4).16 The labral tear position was described as a clock face position with tear length recorded as the difference between the starting and ending positions, that is, a tear from 1 o’clock to 3 o’clock was recorded as “2.”
TABLE 1.
Procedures Performed
| Procedure | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Open (surgical hip dislocation) | 56 (65.1) |
| Arthroscopic | 30 (34.9) |
| Femoroplasty | 81 (94.2) |
| Labral repair | 49 (57.0) |
| Acetabuloplasty | 20 (23.3) |
| Capsular plication | 14 (16.3) |
| Synovectomy | 3 (3.5) |
| Psoas lengthening | 1 (1.2) |
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were first examined for normality, and nonparametric tests such as Kruskal-Willis test were considered. The change of PROs from pre to post were described by mean and SD, and they were considered with a 1-sample t test. A Spearman correlation was used to evaluate for an association between radiographic measures and PROs. α Angle and labral disease were compared with Mann-Whitney test between 2 groups based on a cutoff 55 for α angle. We defined P<0.05 as statistically significant and statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4 (version 9.4, Released 2013, SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
RESULTS
Demographics
Patient demographic data and radiographic measurements are reported in Table 2. A majority of hips were female (74.4%) with an average age of 16.5 years (range, 10.4 to 20.5 y) and an average BMI of 24.1 kg/m2 (range, 14.2 to 45.3 kg/m2). The average α angle was 61.7 degrees (range, 37 to 105 degrees) and LCEA was 31.6 degrees (range, 20 to 46 degrees). The average length of follow-up was 37 months (range, 12 to 121 mo).
TABLE 2.
Patient Demographics and Radiographic Measurements
| Sex (female), n (%) | 64 (74.4) |
| Age (y) | 16.5 (10.4-20.5) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.1 (14.2-45.3) |
| Sports participation, n (%) | 74 (86.0) |
| Insidious onset, n (%) | 63 (73.3) |
| Duration of symptoms (wk) | 79.9 (10-260) |
| Follow-up (mo) | 37.0 (12-121) |
| α Angle (deg.) | 61.7 (37-105) |
| LCEA (deg.) | 31.6 (20-46) |
LCEA indicates lateral center edge angle.
PROs
Preoperative and postoperative PROs are reported in Table 3. There was a statistically significant improvement in the mHHS, HOOS, and UCLA scores when comparing preoperative to the most recent postoperative values (P<0.001 for each). Table 4 correlates α angle and LCEA to the severity of preoperative symptoms, and the amount of improvement postoperatively. Preoperative UCLA scores showed significant positive correlation with an increased LCEA (Corr 0.215, P=0.046). Otherwise, there was no significant correlation identified between the radiographic measurements and preoperative symptom severity or amount of improvement postoperatively. In addition, we comparted preoperative and postoperative PROs between patients with and without labral tears and did not identify any significant difference between these 2 cohorts of patients.
TABLE 3.
Pre Versus Post Patient Reported Outcomes
| Preoperative | Postoperative | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| mHHS | 62.8±16.2 | 86.5±15.2 | <0.0001 |
| HOOS* | 57.5±18.2 | 85.6±16.4 | <0.0001 |
| UCLA | 6.8±2.8 | 8.2±2.2 | <0.0001 |
Bold values are statistically significant (P<0.05).
HOOS total score.
HOOS indicates Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; mHHS, modified Harris Hip Score.
TABLE 4.
Preoperative and Postoperative Patient Reported Outcomes and Correlation* to α Angle and LCEA
| Preoperative PRO | Difference Between Pre-PRO and Post-PRO | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| α Angle | LCEA | α Angle | LCEA | |||||||
| Score | Corr | P | Corr | P | ΔScore | Corr | P | Corr | P | |
| mHHS | 62.8±16.2 | 0.041 | 0.711 | −0.036 | 0.743 | 23.5±20.3 | −0.027 | 0.810 | −0.097 | 0.385 |
| HOOS† | 57.5±18.2 | 0.113 | 0.310 | −0.136 | 0.211 | 28.1±20.5 | −0.193 | 0.082 | −0.047 | 0.665 |
| UCLA | 6.8±2.8 | 0.003 | 0.976 | 0.215 | 0.046 | 1.4±2.8 | 0.020 | 0.860 | −0.162 | 0.145 |
Bold value is statistically significant (P<0.05).
Corr is Spearman rank correlation coefficient.
HOOS total score.
LCEA indicates lateral center edge angle; HOOS, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; mHHS, modified Harris Hip Score; PRO, patient reported outcome.
Intraoperative Findings
Intraoperative findings as defined by the Beck Classification are listed in Table 5. Only 11.6% of hips had a normal appearing labrum, whereas 67.4% acetabulum and 88.4% femoral head articular cartilage appeared normal. When dichotomizing the labral findings as either normal or abnormal (Table 6), increased α angle was associated with labral pathology. Table 7 groups α angle into 2 distinct groups and demonstrates α angles >55 degrees have an average labral grade of 3.0±0.9, which is significantly higher (P=0.004) compared with ≤55 degrees (2.2±1.0). In addition, length of labral tear was significantly longer with α angle >55 degrees (P=0.031) with a mild correlation (Corr 0.295, P=0.007).
TABLE 5.
Intraoperative Findings
| Grade | n (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Acetabular articular cartilage | 1 | 58 (67.4) |
| 2 | 11 (12.8) | |
| 3 | 7 (8.1) | |
| 4 | 7 (8.1) | |
| 5 | 3 (3.5) | |
| Femoral head articular cartilage | 1 | 76 (88.4) |
| 2 | 8 (9.3) | |
| 4 | 2 (2.3) | |
| Labrum disease | 1 | 10 (11.6) |
| 2 | 28 (32.6) | |
| 3 | 20 (23.3) | |
| 4 | 28 (32.6) | |
| Femoral head-neck junction | 1 | 60 (69.8) |
| 2 | 21 (24.4) | |
| 4 | 2 (2.3) | |
| 5 | 3 (3.5) | |
| Synovitis | No | 52 (60.5) |
| Yes | 34 (39.5) |
TABLE 6.
Intraoperative Disease to α Angle and LCEA
| Labral Disease | Grade=1 | Grade≥2 | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| α Angle | 50.0±9.8 | 63.3±14.6 | 0.004 |
| LCEA | 33.5±6.9 | 31.81±6.4 | 0.43 |
| Femoral head-neck junction | |||
| α Angle | 64.3±14.9 | 56.1±13.0 | 0.01 |
| LCEA | 31.3±6.5 | 33.6±6.1 | 0.14 |
| Acetabular articular cartilage | |||
| α Angle | 61.05±14.3 | 63.0±15.7 | 0.58 |
| LCEA | 32.3±7.0 | 31.5±5.3 | 0.78 |
| Femoral head articular cartilage | |||
| α Angle | 61.9±15.6 | 60.3±13.1 | 0.97 |
| LCEA | 32.2±6.6 | 30.6±5.3 | 0.55 |
| Reoperation rate | No | Yes (n=10) | |
| α Angle | 61.3±14.6 | 64.7±15.9 | 0.49 |
| LCEA | 32.5±6.4 | 28.0±5.5 | 0.03 |
Bold values are statistically significant (P<0.05).
LCEA indicates lateral center edge angle.
TABLE 7.
α Angle and Labral Disease
| α Angle≤55 deg. | α Angle>55 deg. | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labral disease* | 2.2±1.0 | 3.0±0.9 | 0.004 |
| Tear length† | 0.9±1.4 | 1.3±1.2 | 0.031 |
Bold values are statistically significant (P<0.05).
Average Beck classification grade.
Average tear length.
Complications and Reoperations
No complications were reported or recorded within this population. Overall, 10 of the 86 hips (11.6%) went on to have a secondary procedure. These included repeat hip arthroscopy (4), periacetabular osteotomy (3), repeat surgical hip dislocation (1), hardware removal (1), and an aborted procedure due to severity of chondral disease with subsequent osteoarticular transfer system procedure (1).
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrates that increased α angles, representing larger cam lesions, correlate with more severe intraoperative labral disease and longer labral tear length in the adolescent patient. It has been well documented that the morphologic abnormalities seen in FAI lead to labral tears and chondral damage with eventual hip degeneration.15,17 In the adult population, α angles have been positively correlated with longer labral tears (0.016 increase per degree, P=0.005) and severity of labral disease (P<0.001).18,19 Nepple et al19 further demonstrated α angle >50 degrees to be independently associated with Outerbridge grade 3 or 4 acetabular chondromalacia. Specifically looking at those patients in that study with cam impingement (157 hips, average age 37.9), 82.2% had acetabular cartilage damage.
In this adolescent/transitional population, 67.4% and 88.4% of the hips had normal appearing acetabular and femoral head articular cartilage, respectively, compared with only 11.6% with a normal appearing labrum. Thus, it is likely that labral pathology precedes damage to the articular cartilage of the acetabulum and femoral head. In addition, α angles >55 degrees were identified as causing more severe labral disease (average grade 3.0±0.9) compared with ≤55 degrees (P=0.004). This knowledge may guide earlier operative intervention in the adolescent patient with a more severe α angle to prevent further damage to the labrum and articular cartilage. A recently published best practice guideline on hip arthroscopy in patients with FAI suggested early surgical intervention for patients with α angle >65 degrees.20
In the present study, we demonstrated significant improvement in PROs following operative intervention for FAI. This improvement also did not correlate with our radiographic measurements. Our outcomes are similar to previously published literature.21–30 Litrenta et al26 similarly demonstrated a significant improvement in mHHS from 64.6±15.9 preoperatively to 88.1±12.3 postoperatively (P<0.001). Another study on adolescent patients with FAI treated with surgical hip dislocation, found mHHS to improve from 57.7 to 85.8 postoperatively.30 All studies conclude that surgical treatment successfully treat symptomatic FAI in adolescent patients.
Although there was no association between α angle or LCEA and PROs in this adolescent population, correlation with disease severity was demonstrated. Radiographic measures and reported symptom severity have been reported with variable associations in the adult literature. Guler et al,8 reported increased α angles were correlated with a positive impingement test and hip pain. Lansdown et al,9 noted increasing preoperative AP α angles correlated a lower postoperative mHHS (β=−0.18, P=0.046) and higher visual analog scale pain score (β=0.28, P=0.024), at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. More recently, however, Briggs et al,31 and Kierkegaard et al,32 both failed to identify a correlation between α angle and postoperative PROs.31,32
Psychological conditions may distort the associations of FAI morphology and preoperative and postoperative PROs. Hampton et al33 suggested psychological factors, such as depression, anxiety, or pain catastrophizing, play a role in the presentation and outcomes in patients with hip disease. Another study demonstrated that patients who undergo hip arthroscopic surgery have an increased prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses.34 As a result, radiographic measurements may be only 1 out of many variables effecting PROs.
The rate of reoperation in this study was 11.6%, which is on the upper end of published data (3% to 13%).23,26,27 Three of the 10 patients who underwent reoperation had a periacetabular osteotomy, indicating these patients’ hip pain was later determined to be secondary to microinstability, as opposed to impingement. Differentiating between microinstability and impingement in patients with a cam lesions and borderline dysplasia (defined by LCEA<25 degrees) can be difficult. As such, noted in Table 6, a decreased LCEA was associated with an increased risk of reoperation (P=0.034). Further research to identify preoperative factors that may improve diagnostic accuracy and prognosis for adolescent FAI is warranted.
A primary limitation of this study is the variability introduced by multiple surgeons. Arthroscopic treatment versus open surgical hip dislocation was employed by differing surgeons exclusively for treatment of the condition. In addition, the data rely on intraoperative grading of labral and cartilage pathology that, while utilizing established criteria, is subject to variability among the 3 surgeons. Although the data were collected in a systematic prospective manner, the study is subject to the flaws of retrospective review and limited follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Increased α angle significantly correlates with labral pathology, including increased length of tear and severity of labral disease, irrespective of preoperative symptoms or postoperative PROs. Further research is needed to determine if earlier intervention in the adolescent population with larger cam lesions is warranted to prevent further damage to the labrum and articular cartilage.
Footnotes
Funding: none.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Giordano BD. Assessment and treatment of hip pain in the adolescent athlete. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2014;61:1137–1154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Notzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, 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;84:556–560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Yen YM, Kocher MS. Clinical and radiographic diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013;33(suppl 1):S112–120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Meyer DC, Beck M, Ellis T, et al. Comparison of six radiographic projections to assess femoral head/neck asphericity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;445:181–185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ito K, Minka MA, II, Leunig M, et al. Femoroacetabular impingement and the cam-effect. A MRI-based quantitative anatomical study of the femoral head-neck offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:171–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, et al. Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:112–120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.de Sa D, Urquhart N, Philippon M, et al. Alpha angle correction in femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:812–821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Guler O, Isyar M, Karatas D, et al. A retrospective analysis on the correlation between hip pain, physical examination findings, and alpha angle on MR images. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016;11:140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lansdown DA, Kunze K, Ukwuani G, et al. The importance of comprehensive cam correction: radiographic parameters are predictive of patient-reported outcome measures at 2 years after hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46:2072–2078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Degen RM, Nawabi DH, Bedi A, et al. Radiographic predictors of femoroacetabular impingement treatment outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:36–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Maldonado DR, Chen JW, Walker-Santiago R, et al. Radiographic and demographic factors can predict the need for primary labral reconstruction in hip arthroscopic surgery: a predictive model using 1398 hips. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48:173–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Sogbein OA, Shah A, Kay J, et al. Predictors of outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7:2325967119848982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaule PE, et al. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(suppl 4):47–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, et al. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:464–469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, et al. Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1012–1018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Guimaraes Barros AA, Vassalo CC, Costa LP, et al. Determining reliability of arthroscopic classifications for hip labral tears. Clin J Sport Med. 2019. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Thomas GE, Palmer AJ, Batra RN, et al. Subclinical deformities of the hip are significant predictors of radiographic osteoarthritis and joint replacement in women. A 20 year longitudinal cohort study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014;22:1504–1510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Redmond JM, Gupta A, Hammarstedt JE, et al. Labral injury: radiographic predictors at the time of hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:51–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Nepple JJ, Carlisle JC, Nunley RM, et al. Clinical and radiographic predictors of intra-articular hip disease in arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:296–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lynch TS, Minkara A, Aoki S, et al. Best practice guidelines for hip arthroscopy in femoroacetabular impingement: results of a Delphi process. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28:81–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Byrd JW, Jones KS, Gwathmey FW. Femoroacetabular impingement in adolescent athletes: outcomes of arthroscopic management. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:2106–2111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Cvetanovich GL, Weber AE, Kuhns BD, et al. Clinically meaningful improvements after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in adolescent and young adult patients regardless of gender. J Pediatr Orthop. 2018;38:465–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.de Sa D, Cargnelli S, Catapano M, et al. Femoroacetabular impingement in skeletally immature patients: a systematic review examining indications, outcomes, and complications of open and arthroscopic treatment. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:373–384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Degen RM, Mayer SW, Fields KG, et al. Functional outcomes and cam recurrence after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in adolescents. Arthroscopy. 2017;33:1361–1369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Larson CM, McGaver RS, Collette NR, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement in skeletally immature athletes: radiographic and clinical analysis. Arthroscopy. 2019;35:1819–1825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Litrenta J, Mu BH, Ortiz-Declet V, et al. Hip arthroscopy successfully treats femoroacetabular impingement in adolescent athletes. J Pediatr Orthop. 2020;40:e156–e160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Philippon MJ, Ejnisman L, Ellis HB, et al. Outcomes 2 to 5 years following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in the patient aged 11 to 16 years. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:1255–1261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Philippon MJ, Yen YM, Briggs KK, et al. Early outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in the athletic adolescent patient: a preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28:705–710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Zhong M, Zhu W, Ouyang K. Hip arthroscopy successfully treats femoroacetabular impingement in adolescent athletes. J Pediatr Orthop. 2020. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Sink EL, Fabricant PD, Pan Z, et al. Results of treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in adolescents with a surgical hip dislocation approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2563–2569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Briggs KK, Soares E, Bhatia S, et al. Postoperative alpha angle not associated with patient-centered midterm outcomes following hip arthroscopy for FAI. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27:3105–3109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Kierkegaard S, Rømer L, Lund B, et al. No association between femoral or acetabular angles and patient-reported outcomes in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome—results from the HAFAI cohort. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2020. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hampton SN, Nakonezny PA, Richard HM, et al. Pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression in hip pathology. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B:800–807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Iglinski-Benjamin KC, Xiao M, Safran MR, et al. Increased prevalence of concomitant psychiatric diagnoses among patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7:2325967118822451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]