Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Prevalence of knee pain, radiographic osteoarthritis and arthroplasty in retired professional footballers compared with men in the general population: a cross-sectional study
  1. Gwen Sascha Fernandes1,2,3,
  2. Sanjay Mukund Parekh1,2,
  3. Jonathan Moses1,2,4,
  4. Colin Fuller2,5,
  5. Brigitte Scammell1,2,3,4,
  6. Mark Edward Batt1,2,4,
  7. Weiya Zhang1,2,3,
  8. Michael Doherty1,2,3
  1. 1 Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2 Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sports, Exercise and Osteoarthritis, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
  3. 3 Arthritis Research UK Pain Centre, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
  4. 4 Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
  5. 5 Colin Fuller Consultancy Ltd, Sutton Bonnington, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Weiya Zhang, Academic Rheumatology, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; weiya.zhang{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To determine the prevalence of knee pain, radiographic knee osteoarthritis (RKOA), total knee replacement (TKR) and associated risk factors in male ex-professional footballers compared with men in the general population (comparison group).

Methods 1207 male ex-footballers and 4085 men in the general population in the UK were assessed by postal questionnaire. Current knee pain was defined as pain in or around the knees on most days of the previous month. Presence and severity of RKOA were assessed on standardised radiographs using the Nottingham Line Drawing Atlas (NLDA) in a subsample of 470 ex-footballers and 491 men in the comparison group. The adjusted risk ratio (aRR) and adjusted risk difference (aRD) with 95% CI in ex-footballers compared with the general population were calculated using the marginal model in Stata.

Results Ex-footballers were more likely than the comparison group to have current knee pain (aRR 1.91, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.06), RKOA (aRR 2.21, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.54) and TKR (aRR 3.61, 95% CI 2.90 to 4.50). Ex-footballers were also more likely to present with chondrocalcinosis (aRR 3.41, 95% CI 2.44 to 4.77). Prevalence of knee pain and RKOA were higher in ex-footballers at all ages. However, even after adjustment for significant knee injury and other risk factors, there was more than a doubling of risk of these outcomes in footballers.

Conclusions The prevalence of all knee osteoarthritis outcomes (knee pain, RKOA and TKR) were two to three times higher in male ex-footballers compared with men in the general population group. Knee injury is the main attributable risk factor. Even after adjustment for recognised risk factors, knee osteoarthritis appear to be an occupational hazard of professional football.

  • osteoarthritis
  • football
  • epidemiology

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors GSF designed the data collection tools, wrote the statistical plan, implemented the study design (conducted the study), conducted cleaning and analysis of the data, wrote the initial drafts of the paper and subsequently revised the paper after feedback from the team. SMP designed the data collection tools, wrote the statistical plan, implemented the study design (conducted the study), conducted cleaning and analysis of the data and drafted and revised the paper. JPM conducted cleaning and analysis of the data, and drafted and revised the paper. CWF conceptualised the study and drafted and revised the paper. BS conceptualised the study and drafted and revised the paper. MEB monitored data collection and drafted and revised the paper. WZ conceptualised and designed the study and data collection tools, wrote the statistical plan, monitored data collection and drafted and revised the paper. MD conceptualised and designed the study and data collection tools, monitored data collection and drafted and revised the paper. He is guarantor.

  • Funding This work was supported by Arthritis Research UK (grant number 20194 and 20777. The study was also funded FIFA’s Medical Assessment and Research Centre and the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA).

  • Competing interests All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: financial support (research grant) for the submitted work from FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Centre, other from Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sports, Exercise and Osteoarthritis (grant reference 20194); research grant from the Professional Footballers’ Association and financial support from the SPIRE Healthcare Group at the Football Association (St George’s Park); CF did paid consultancy for FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Centre, the Football Association and the Premier League in the past 3 years and has received personal fees from these bodies outside the remit of the submitted work; MD received research funding by AstraZeneca, Nordic Biosciences, Roche, outside the submitted work; Dr Zhang reports grants from Arthritis Research UK, grants from Arthritis Research UK, during the conduct of the study; other from AstraZeneca, other from Daiichi Sankyo, other from Biobarica, other from Hisun, outside the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years for any other authors; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the Nottingham Research Ethics Committee 1 (Refs 14/EM/0045 and 14/EM/0015).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.