Cross-sectional study examines femoroacetabular impingement in youth ice hockey and ringette athletes, suggesting effective screening methods.
Objectives: (1) To radiographically examine morphologies consistent with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome in youth ice hockey and ringette athletes aged 14 to 24 years; (2) to examine FAI syndrome diagnosis because it relates to positive findings on special tests. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: University, Sport Medicine Center. Participants: Male and female ice hockey/ringette athletes at 14 to 24 years with no history of traumatic hip/pelvic injuries/surgeries. Interventions: Examination of a novel screening protocol, using a cluster of tests, for FAI syndrome. Main Outcome Measures: Clinical hip findings (hip passive range of motion [p-ROM]; hip muscle strength testing; hip impingement special tests [ST]), radiographic evidence of FAI syndrome (α angle; lateral center edge angle [LCEA]; crossover sign). Results: A convenience sample of 28 males and 30 females consented from a larger cohort to undergo radiographs. FAI syndrome was present in 61% of males and 67% of females. Males demonstrated higher odds of cam morphologies unilaterally relative to females (OR = 4.29, 95% CI, 1.52–12.23), and based on point estimates, females displayed higher odds of pincer morphologies, both unilaterally (OR = 2.68, 95% CI, 0.95–7.73) and bilaterally (OR = 2.41, 95% CI, 0.73–8.12). Males displayed higher α angle than females (b 2 = 6.05, 95% CI, −9.75 to −2.34). No other covariates were associated with α angle/LCEA. With each additional positive ST, the odds of having evidence of FAI syndrome increased 3-fold (OR = 3.34, 95% CI, 1.91–5.83). Conclusions: Youth male and female ice hockey and ringette athletes display similar prevalence of FAI syndrome; however, specific morphologies differ by sex. This study provides evidence that a cluster of tests may increase the certainty with which suspected FAI syndrome can be assessed through screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: