Trunk, pelvis and lower limb walking biomechanics are similarly altered in those with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome regardless of cam morphology size.

<bold>Background: </bold>Studies of walking in those with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome have found altered pelvis and hip biomechanics. But a whole body, time-contiuous, assessment of biomechanical parameters has not been reported. Additionally, larger cam morphology has been associated with more pain, faster progression to end-stage osteoarthritis and increased cartilage damage but differences in walking biomechanics between large compared to small cam morphologies have not been assessed.<bold>Research Question: </bold>Are trunk, pelvis and lower limb biomechanics different between healthy pain-free controls and individuals with FAI syndrome and are those biomechanics different between those with larger, compared to smaller, cam morphologies?<bold>Methods: </bold>Twenty four pain-free controls were compared against 41 participants with FAI syndrome who were stratified into two groups according to their maximum alpha angle. Participants underwent three-dimensional motion capture during walking. Trunk, pelvis, and lower limb biomechanics were compared between groups using statistical parametric mapping corrected for walking speed and pain.<bold>Results: </bold>Compared to pain-free controls, participants with FAI syndrome walked with more trunk anterior tilt (mean difference 7.6°, p < 0.001) as well as less pelvic rise (3°, p < 0.001), hip abduction (-4.6°, p < 0.05) and external rotation (-6.5°, p < 0.05). They also had lower hip flexion (-0.06Nm⋅kg-1, p < 0.05), abduction (-0.07Nm⋅kg-1, p < 0.05) and ankle plantarflexion moments (-0.19Nm⋅kg-1, p < 0.001). These biomechanical differences occurred throughout the gait cycle. There were no differences in walking biomechanics according to cam morphology size.<bold>Significance: </bold>Results do not support the hypothesis that larger cam morphology is associated with larger differences in walking biomechanics but did demonstrate general differences in trunk, pelvis and lower limb biomechanics between those with FAI sydrome and pain-free controls. Altered external biomechanics are likely the result of complex sensory-motor strategy resulting from pain inhibition or impingement avoidance. Future studies should examine internal loading in those with FAI sydnrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]