Squatting biomechanics following physiotherapist-led care or hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: a secondary analysis from a randomised controlled trial.

Background: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) can cause hip pain and chondrolabral damage that may be managed non-operatively or surgically. Squatting motions require large degrees of hip flexion and underpin many daily and sporting tasks but may cause hip impingement and provoke pain. Differential effects of physiotherapist-led care and arthroscopy on biomechanics during squatting have not been examined previously. This study explored differences in 12-month changes in kinematics and moments during squatting between patients with FAIS treated with a physiotherapist-led intervention (Personalised Hip Therapy, PHT) and arthroscopy. Methods: A subsample (n = 36) of participants with FAIS enrolled in a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial underwent three-dimensional motion analysis during squatting at baseline and 12-months following random allocation to PHT (n = 17) or arthroscopy (n = 19). Changes in time-series and peak trunk, pelvis, and hip biomechanics, and squat velocity and maximum depth were explored between treatment groups. Results: No significant differences in 12-month changes were detected between PHT and arthroscopy groups. Compared to baseline, the arthroscopy group squatted slower at follow-up (descent: mean difference -0.04 m∙s-1 (95%CI [-0.09 to 0.01]); ascent: -0.05 m∙s-1 [-0.11 to 0.01]%). No differences in squat depth were detected between or within groups. After adjusting for speed, trunk flexion was greater in both treatment groups at follow-up compared to baseline (descent: PHT 7.50° [-14.02 to -0.98]%; ascent: PHT 7.29° [-14.69 to 0.12]%, arthroscopy 16.32° [-32.95 to 0.30]%). Compared to baseline, both treatment groups exhibited reduced anterior pelvic tilt (descent: PHT 8.30° [0.21-16.39]%, arthroscopy -10.95° [-5.54 to 16.34]%; ascent: PHT -7.98° [-0.38 to 16.35]%, arthroscopy -10.82° [3.82-17.81]%), hip flexion (descent: PHT -11.86° [1.67-22.05]%, arthroscopy -16.78° [8.55-22.01]%; ascent: PHT -12.86° [1.30-24.42]%, arthroscopy -16.53° [6.72-26.35]%), and knee flexion (descent: PHT -6.62° [0.56- 12.67]%; ascent: PHT -8.24° [2.38-14.10]%, arthroscopy -8.00° [-0.02 to 16.03]%). Compared to baseline, the PHT group exhibited more plantarflexion during squat ascent at follow-up (-3.58° [-0.12 to 7.29]%). Compared to baseline, both groups exhibited lower external hip flexion moments at follow-up (descent: PHT -0.55 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.05-1.05]%, arthroscopy -0.84 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.06-1.61]%; ascent: PHT -0.464 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [-0.002 to 0.93]%, arthroscopy -0.90 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.13-1.67]%). Conclusion: Exploratory data suggest at 12-months follow-up, neither PHT or hip arthroscopy are superior at eliciting changes in trunk, pelvis, or lower-limb biomechanics. Both treatments may induce changes in kinematics and moments, however the implications of these changes are unknown. Trial registration details: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry reference: ACTRN12615001177549. Trial registered 2/11/2015.