Pedro Dantas, Sergio R Gonçalves, André Grenho, Vasco Mascarenhas, Jorge Martins, Miguel Tavares da Silva, Sergio B Gonçalves, José Guimarães Consciência
{"title":"Hip joint contact pressure and force: a scoping review of in vivo and cadaver studies.","authors":"Pedro Dantas, Sergio R Gonçalves, André Grenho, Vasco Mascarenhas, Jorge Martins, Miguel Tavares da Silva, Sergio B Gonçalves, José Guimarães Consciência","doi":"10.1302/2046-3758.1212.BJR-2022-0461.R2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Research on hip biomechanics has analyzed femoroacetabular contact pressures and forces in distinct hip conditions, with different procedures, and used diverse loading and testing conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the available evidence in the literature for hip contact pressures and force in cadaver and in vivo studies, and how joint loading, labral status, and femoral and acetabular morphology can affect these biomechanical parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews for this literature search in three databases. After screening, 16 studies were included for the final analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The studies assessed different hip conditions like labrum status, the biomechanical effect of the cam, femoral version, acetabular coverage, and the effect of rim trimming. The testing and loading conditions were also quite diverse, and this disparity limits direct comparisons between the different researches. With normal anatomy the mean contact pressures ranged from 1.54 to 4.4 MPa, and the average peak contact pressures ranged from 2 to 9.3 MPa. Labral tear or resection showed an increase in contact pressures that diminished after repair or reconstruction of the labrum. Complete cam resection also decreased the contact pressure, and acetabular rim resection of 6 mm increased the contact pressure at the acetabular base.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To date there is no standardized methodology to access hip contact biomechanics in hip arthroscopy, or with the preservation of the periarticular soft-tissues. A tendency towards improved biomechanics (lower contact pressures) was seen with labral repair and reconstruction techniques as well as with cam correction.</p>","PeriodicalId":9074,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Research","volume":"12 12","pages":"712-721"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10693937/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.1212.BJR-2022-0461.R2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: Research on hip biomechanics has analyzed femoroacetabular contact pressures and forces in distinct hip conditions, with different procedures, and used diverse loading and testing conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the available evidence in the literature for hip contact pressures and force in cadaver and in vivo studies, and how joint loading, labral status, and femoral and acetabular morphology can affect these biomechanical parameters.
Methods: We used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews for this literature search in three databases. After screening, 16 studies were included for the final analysis.
Results: The studies assessed different hip conditions like labrum status, the biomechanical effect of the cam, femoral version, acetabular coverage, and the effect of rim trimming. The testing and loading conditions were also quite diverse, and this disparity limits direct comparisons between the different researches. With normal anatomy the mean contact pressures ranged from 1.54 to 4.4 MPa, and the average peak contact pressures ranged from 2 to 9.3 MPa. Labral tear or resection showed an increase in contact pressures that diminished after repair or reconstruction of the labrum. Complete cam resection also decreased the contact pressure, and acetabular rim resection of 6 mm increased the contact pressure at the acetabular base.
Conclusion: To date there is no standardized methodology to access hip contact biomechanics in hip arthroscopy, or with the preservation of the periarticular soft-tissues. A tendency towards improved biomechanics (lower contact pressures) was seen with labral repair and reconstruction techniques as well as with cam correction.