Summary of included case–control studies evaluating the effect of FAI and associated pathologies on functional task
| Paper (total score using modified Downs and Black appraisal) | Study characteristics | Sample characteristics | Results | ||||||||
| Inclusion pathology | Outcome measured | Method measured | Level of evidence | Sample size | Gender | Age (years) * | (Between-group) Hip group mean (SD) | (Between-group) Control group mean (SD) | Standardised mean difference (SMD) magnitude (95% CI) | Overall main findings | |
| Harris-Hayes et al
32
(11/17) | Unilateral FAI (clinical and radiological diagnosis) | TDS including % time spend doing no activity; low activity (15–40 strides/min); medium activity (41–75 strides/min); high activity >75 strides/min) | Stride activity monitoring | Cross sectional | 74 hip groups/ 20 controls | 36 M/38 W | 32 (11) | TDS 5095 (2354); % time at no activity 73.2 (9.4); % time at low activity 17.7 (6.5); % time at medium activity 7.7 (3.8); % time at high activity 1.4 (1.6) | TDS 5192 (2164); % time at no activity 72.3 (8.8); % time at low activity 18.3 (6.3); % time at medium activity 8.0 (3.9); % time at high activity 1.4 (1.4) |
TDS FAI versus controls
−0.04 (−0.54 to 0.45) | |
| Hatton e
t al
24
(13/17) | Chondropathy at arthroscopy | 12–24 months after arthroscopy— balance during SL stance eyes closed and SL squat eyes open. Specific outcomes=COP Path velocity; AP range; AP SD, ML range, ML SD | Wii balance board | Cross sectional | 63 hip groups/ 60 controls | 27 M/36 W | 36 (10) | SL squat—COP 6.92 (1.77); AP=6.8 (2.33); AP SD=1.37 (0.47); ML=3.5 (0.77); ML SD=0.65 (0.15); SL stance eyes closed COP=11.39 (3.13); AP=8.11 (2.51); AP SD=1.57 (0.46); ML=5.73 (2.35); ML SD=1.33 (0.39) | SL squat—COP=6.3 (1.2); AP=6.25 (1.4); AP SD=1.19 (0.31); ML=3.14 (0.45); ML SD=0.69 (0.87); SL stance eyes closed COP=11.21 (5.41); AP=8.31 (5.64); AP SD=1.51 (0.54); ML=5.52 (4.62); ML SD=1.21 (0.45) |
SL squat versus controls
COP 0.41 (0.05 to 0.76), AP 0.28 (−0.07 to 0.64), AP SD 0.45 (0.09 to 0.81), ML 0.56 (0.20 to 0.92), ML SD −0.06 (−0.42 to 0.29) SL stance versus controls COP 0.04 (−0.31 to 0.39), AP −0.05 (−0.40 to 0.31), AP SD 0.12 (−0.24 to 0.47), ML 0.06 (−0.30 to 0.41), ML SD 0.28 (−0.07 to 0.64) | Additional findings to between-group difference: in patients with chondropathy, greater ER 90 ROM (r=0.353, p=0.005), greater total hip ROM (0.296, 0.020), greater hip IR (0.265, 0.039) and Abd strength (0.290, 0.023) were correlated with greater ML range in SL squat eyes open task |
| Ng et al
41
(13/17) | Cam deformity (clinical and radiological diagnosis) | Squat depth and sagittal pelvic ROM | Vicon | Cross sectional | 43 | 50 M/0 W | 33 (7) |
Squat depth versus asymptomatic
−0.77 (−6.43 to 4.89) Squat depth versus controls −0.53 (−6.18 to 5.13) Pelvic ROM versus asymptomatic 0.7 (−1.56 to 2.96) Pelvic ROM versus control 0.7 (−1.56 to 2.96) | |||
No randomised clinical trials were available to include in this review. Significant positive SMDs indicate greater functional performance in the hip group.
*Mean (SD).
AP, anterior/posterior; Abd, abduction; COP, centre of pressure; ER, external rotation; FAI, femoral acetabular impingement; IR, internal rotation; M, male; ML, medial/lateral; ROM, range of movement; SL, single leg; TDS, total daily strides; W, woman.