Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 14, 2025
In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
Published on: July 2, 2021
Relationship between cam morphology, hip symptoms, and hip osteoarthritis: the Musculoskeletal pain in Ullersaker
Joanne L Kemp1, Nina Østerås2, Alexander Mathiessen2
1La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Insights
Cam morphology, a hip abnormality, affects 42% of adults aged 40-55. This condition is significantly linked to hip osteoarthritis (OA) and reduced hip range of motion.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedics
- Radiology
- Rheumatology
Background:
- Cam morphology is a common hip abnormality.
- Understanding its prevalence and association with hip osteoarthritis (OA) is crucial for early diagnosis and management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To determine the prevalence of cam morphology in adults aged 40-55.
- To compare participant characteristics, physical impairments, and imaging findings between individuals with and without cam morphology.
- To explore the association between cam morphology and radiographic hip OA.
Main Methods:
- 107 participants (49 ± 4 years) from the MUST Study were assessed.
- Evaluations included questionnaires, hip range of motion, functional tasks, pelvic radiographs, and ultrasound.
- Alpha angle, Kellgren Lawrence (KL) grade, and minimal joint space (MJS) were determined.
Main Results:
- Cam morphology prevalence was 42%, bilateral in 47%.
- Individuals with cam morphology were more likely to have higher KL scores (OR 6.386) and reduced MJS (OR 4.032).
- Cam morphology was associated with reduced hip flexion and rotation, but not with patient-reported outcomes or ultrasonic features.
Conclusions:
- High prevalence (42%) of cam morphology in adults aged 40-55.
- Significant association between cam morphology and radiographic hip OA.
- Further longitudinal studies are recommended to investigate the relationship in younger populations.
Background:
The primary aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of cam morphology in a cohort of people aged 40-55 years. Secondary aims were to: (1) determine differences in participant characteristics, physical impairments, radiographic and ultrasound appearances of people with and without cam morphology; and (2) explore associations between cam morphology and radiographic measures of hip osteoarthritis (OA).
Methods:
107 people (68% women; 49 ± 4 years) from the Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker (MUST) Study underwent the clinical and imaging examinations. Examinations included questionnaires, hip range, functional task performance, pelvic radiographs and ultrasound. Alpha angle and radiographic hip OA (Kellgren Lawrence (KL) and minimal joint space (MJS)) were determined.
Results:
The prevalence of cam morphology was 42% and was bilateral in 47%. People with cam morphology were 6 times more likely to have a KL score ⩾2 (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence intervals, p-value]) 6.386 [1.582-37.646, p = 0.012]) and 4 times more likely to have MJS <2.0 mm (adjusted odds ratio 4.032 [1.031-12.639, p = 0.045]). The prevalence of radiographic OA features ranged from 4-13% in people with cam morphology, and 0-3% in those without. Those with cam morphology also demonstrated reduced hip flexion and rotation range (p = 0.018-0.036) compared with those without. There was no association between ultrasonic features and patient reported outcomes, and cam morphology.
Conclusions:
In a cohort aged 40-55 years, the prevalence of cam morphology was high (42%), with a significant relationship between cam morphology and radiographic measures of hip OA. Further longitudinal studies should explore the relationship between cam morphology and hip OA in younger people.
