Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (2010) 18, 312e316 ª 2009 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.11.004 Hip osteoarthritis and risk factors in elderly Korean population 1 C. Y. Chungy, M. S. Parky, K. M. Leey*, S. H. Leey, T.K.Kimy, K. W. Kimz, J. H. Parkz and J. J. Leez y Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300 Gumi-Dong, Bundang-Gu, Sungnam, Kyungki 463-707, Republic of Korea z Department of Neuropsychiatry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Republic of Korea Summary Objective: To investigate the prevalence of hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a community-based elderly Korean population and to identify its risk factors. Design: Radiographs of hip and knee were evaluated in 288 men and 386 women (age 65 years) that participated in the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging (KLoSHA). Minimum joint space widths (JSW), center-edge angles (CEA), and neckeshaft angles were measured on hip radiographs, and tibioefemoral angles on knee radiographs. Hip OA was defined as minimum JSW of 2mmor2.5 mm. The following potential risk factors of OA were examined; demographic data, acetabular dysplasia, large CEA (40 ) and deformities of femoral neck and knee joint. Multivariate analysis with generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was performed to exclude confounding factors. Results: When hip OA was defined as JSW 2 mm, the overall prevalence of the disease was 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0e3.2%), and only older age (70 years) was identified as a significant risk factors with an odds ratio (OR) of 10.0. However, when hip OA was defined as a JSW of 2.5 mm, the overall prevalence of the disease was 13.1% (95% CI, 10.5e15.6%), and older age (70 years), female, large CEA (40 ), and acetabular dysplasia (CEA < 20 ) were identified as significant risk factors with ORs of 2.1, 2.1, 2.3, and 10.2, respectively. Conclusions: The prevalence of hip OA in elderly Korean was 2.1% (JSW 2 mm) in community-based population. Older age (70 years), female, large CEA (40 ), and acetabular dysplasia (CEA < 20 ) appeared to be significant risk factors of hip OA. ª 2009 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Key words: Hip osteoarthritis, Prevalence, Korean, Risk factors, Deformity. Introduction Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most disabling diseases in elderly population and the most important cause of total hip replacement arthroplasty. Several studies have reported the prevalence of this disease and proposed that female, body mass index (BMI), age, and hip dysplasia are predisposing risk factors 1e8. These studies showed somewhat lower prevalences of hip OA in oriental populations than in Caucasians 9e11, but suggested risk factors differ from study to study. Moreover, the majority of previous studies were performed on hospital-based populations and measurements were performed on urograms 9,10,12e14 and colon radiographs 15, which could have affected the results. In addition, although workload has been proposed to be a risk factor of hip OA 16, the correlation between the prevalence of the disease and deformities of the lower extremity that could affect mechanical load directions have not been 1 This study was conducted at Seoul National University Bundang Hosptial. *Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Kyoung Min Lee, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 300 Gumi-Dong, Bundang-Gu, Sungnam, Kyungki 463-707, Republic of Korea. Tel: 82-31-787-6257; Fax: 82-31-787-4056; E-mail: oasis100@empal.com Received 16 July 2009; revision accepted 1 November 2009. sufficiently investigated. Moreover, femoroacetabular impingement has been proposed as a causative mechanism of hip OA 17,18, but the effect of large center-edge angles (CEA) on the prevalence of the disease has also not been studied. In this study, the authors sought to investigate the prevalence of hip OA in a community-based elderly Korean population, and to identify risk factors. Method This cohort-based study was approved by the institutional review board at our hospital and informed consent was obtained from all participants. This study was conducted as a substudy of the KLoSHA Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging. THE KOREAN LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON HEALTH AND AGING (KLoSHA) The KLoSHA study was a population-based prospective cohort study of health, aging, and common geriatric diseases in elderly Koreans, and was conducted from September 2005 to August 2006. The cohort was recruited from residents aged 65 years or older in Seongnam City, South Korea. Candidates were randomly selected using resident registration numbers (RRN) and 1118 residents were invited to participate in the survey by letter or telephone; 696 agreed to participate. Demographic data were archived and antero-posterior hip and knee radiographs were taken in a standing position with patellae facing forwards. Subjects with missing hip radiographs were 312
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Vol. 18, No. 3 313 excluded. Hip joints with total hip replacement arthroplasties were also excluded. RADIOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AND THE DEFINITION OF HIP OA All radiographic images were digitally acquired using a picture archiving and communication system (PACS; Impax: Agfa, Antwerp, Belgium), and assessments were subsequently carried out using PACS software. On hip radiographs, CEA 19, femoral neckeshaft angle (NSA), and minimum joint space width (JSW) 20 were measured. Tibio-femoral angles (TFA) were determined using knee radiographs. When CEAs were measured, we endeavored to exclude osteophyte portion of lateral acetabular margin. We measured CEAs to the lateral end of acetabular sourcil, not to the lateral end of osteophyte. NSAs were the angles performed by the meeting of the axis of femoral shaft with the long axis of the femoral neck and head. Femoro-tibial angles (FTAs) were the angles between the long axis of femoral shaft and the long axis of tibial shaft. JSW was measured at three points; (1) lateral margin of subchondral sclerotic line, (2) apical transection by a vertical line through the center of femoral head, and (3) medial margin of the weight bearing surface bordering on the fovea. Minimum JSW was selected as the smallest of these three measurements or as a fourth measurement if minimum JSW was found outside the three standard locations. Two definitions of hip OA were adopted based on minimum JSWs of 2 mm 21 or 2.5 mm 13e15,22e24. INTRA- AND INTEROBSERVER RELIABILITIES OF MEASUREMENTS Consensus building and reliability sessions were held before taking the radiographic measurements. During consensus building, the radiologic definitions and measurement landmarks were clarified by three observers, who were orthopedic surgeons with 8, 7, and 4 years of experience, respectively. Reliability sessions were designed to use the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and performed on 80 randomly selected joints of 40 subjects after performing sample size estimation calculations. The interobserver reliability was determined using the three orthopedic surgeons, who measured the CEA, NSA, minimum JSW and TFA, and were unaware of the other observers findings. The interobserver reliability of each radiographic measurement was calculated as an ICC value among the three observers. The orders of the measurements were assigned randomly for each observer. In addition, one of the observers repeated the above radiographic measurements 3 weeks later and the intraobserver reliability was determined. PREVALENCE OF HIP OA Prevalence of hip OA was evaluated according to age and gender separately for unilateral and bilateral OA. The age was divided three groups; 65e69 years, 70e75 years, and 75 years or older. Prevalence of each group was presented as a percentage with the 95% CI. THE IDENTIFICATION OF RISK FACTORS Demographic data, namely, age, gender, and BMI, and radiographic variables were considered candidate risk factors. After setting cutoff values for continuous variables with coding, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated and multivariate analysis was performed, respectively for the two definition of hip OA. Risk factors were analyzed based on the data of hip joints. important factors were included as potential risk factors in the relevant multivariate analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS for Windows (version 15.0; SPSS, Chicago, Illinois) and statistical significance was accepted for P values of <0.05. Results DEMOGRAPHIC DATA The mean age of the subjects invited to participate was 72.2 6.6 years (range, 65e99 years), and 713 (63.8%) were women (Table I). Of the 1118 invited subjects, 696 agreed to participate in this study (response rate 62.3%). The mean age of responders was 71.7 5.3 years, and 398 (57.2%) were women. Responders were younger (P < 0.001) and had a smaller proportion of women than non-responders (P < 0.001, chi-square test). After excluding responders with missing hip radiographs and those that had previously undergone total hip replacement arthroplasty, 674 subjects were finally included. Among these 674 study subjects, women had significantly greater BMIs (P ¼ 0.017) than men. Women were older than men, but the age difference was not statistically significant (Table II). INTEROBSERVER AND INTRAOBSERVER RELIABILITY Interobserver reliabilities and ICCs of CEA, NSA, minimum JSW, and TFA were 0.701 (95% CI, 0.391e0.842), 0.816 (95% CI, 0.699e0.886), 0.710 (95% CI, 0.608e0.794), and 0.921 (95% CI, 0.889e0.944), respectively, whereas their intraobserver reliabilities were 0.889 (95% CI, 0.789e0.937), 0.933 (95% CI, 0.897e0.956), 0.815 (95% CI, 0.500e0.914), and 0.961 (95% CI, 0.940e0.975), respectively. PREVALENCE OF HIP OA When hip OA was defined as JSW 2 mm, the overall prevalence of hip OA was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.0e3.2%), and the prevalence of unilateral and bilateral hip OA were 1.8% (95% CI, 0.8e2.8%) and 0.3% (95% CI, 0e0.7%), respectively. Women showed a higher prevalence than men (2.3% vs 1.7%) but this difference was not significant (P ¼ 0.105, chi-square). When hip OA was defined as JSW 2.5 mm, the overall prevalence of hip OA was 13.1% (95% CI, 10.5e15.6%) with women showing a higher prevalence than men. The prevalence of unilateral and bilateral OA was 8.3% (95% CI, 6.2e10.4%) and 4.7% (95% CI, 3.1e6.4%), respectively (Table III). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Prior precision analysis was performed to determine minimal sample sizes for reliability testing. Reliability sessions were designed so the ICC could be used, which employed a two-way random effect model. When ICC were calculated, single measurement and absolute agreement were assumed. Using an ICC target value of 0.8, Bonett s approximation was used in the setting of 0.1 as a width of 95% CI for three raters 25. The minimal sample size was calculated to be 80. Descriptive statistics were used to report the prevalence of hip OA, and the t-test was used to compare continuous demographic data between genders. Associations between risk factors and the radiologic OA of the hip were assessed using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) models 26 to calculate adjusted ORs and confidential interval. This procedure takes into account the correlation between the left and right hips. Multivariate analysis using GEE models was used to determine the risk factors that significantly affect hip OA. Univariate analysis with GEE was performed initially in order to reduce the number of variables entered into the multivariate analysis. Variables significant at P ¼ 0.1 in the univariate study as well as clinically RISK FACTORS Six significant risk factors in terms of the P values (<0.1) were identified in univariate analysis using the GEE model in either of the two definitions of hip OA, which were an older age (70 years), female, acetabular dysplasia Table I Summary of the KLoSHA n (%) Age (SD) M/F Responder 696 (62.3%) 71.7 (5.3) 298/398 Non-responder 422 (37.7%) 74.7 (7.7) 107/315 Total invitation 1118 72.2 (6.6) 405/713
314 C. Y. Chung et al.: Hip OA and risk factors Table II Demographic data of study subject Variables Male (N ¼ 288) Female (N ¼ 386) P value Age (years) 71.3 (5.0) 71.9 (5.5) 0.112 Height (cm) 164.9 (6.2) 151.0 (5.9) <0.001 Weight (kg) 65.4 (9.9) 56.4 (8.7) <0.001 BMI (kg/m 2 ) 24.0 (3.2) 24.6 (3.3) 0.017 (CEA < 20 ), a large CEA (40 ), a genu valgum (FTA 10 ), and a coxa valga (NSA 140 )(Table IV). These six variables and the BMI were included in the relevant multivariate analysis because the BMI was considered to be a clinically important risk factor. When hip OA was defined as JSW 2 mm, only an older age (70 years) was found to be a significant risk factor with an OR of 10.0 (95% CI, 1.2e84.9) according to multivariate analysis with GEE. When hip OA was defined as a JSW of 2.5 mm, an older age (70 years), female, acetabular dysplasia (CEA < 20 ), and a large CEA (40 ) were identified to be significant risk factors by multivariate analysis using GEE (26) with ORs of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.2e3.7), 2.1 (95% CI, 1.2e3.7), 10.2 (95% CI, 1.8e56.7), and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.5e3.4), respectively (Table IV). Discussion When defined as a minimal JSW 2 mm, the overall prevalence of hip OA was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.0e3.2%) in our community-based elderly Korean population and its prevalence was higher in women than in men. Furthermore, the prevalence of unilateral hip OA was found to be higher than that of bilateral hip OA. The present study suggests that an older age (70 years) was the only significant risk factor of hip OA in community-based elderly Korean population. When we defined hip OA as a minimal JSW of 2.5 mm, the overall prevalence of hip OA was 13.1% (95% CI, 10.5e15.6%), and an older age (70 years), female, an acetabular dysplasia (CEA < 20 ), and a large CEA (40 ) were identified as significant independent risk factors. There were six subjects excluded from this study due to previous total hip arthroplasties. Two of them were men and four women. We could not identify their primary diagnoses. However, if we assume their diagnoses were all hip OA, the overall prevalence of hip OA could be 3.0% (JSW 2 mm) or 13.9% (JSW 2.5 mm) at the highest. This study has some limitations that require consideration. First, hip OA was diagnosed solely using radiographic findings, which differs from normal practice. Second, the low prevalence of hip OA in our cohort made it difficult to identify risk factors. Even when risk factors had ORs > 1, ranges of 95% CIs were large, especially when OA was defined as a minimal JSW of 2 mm. Furthermore, only a single case number change could have markedly affected ORs because of the small numbers in the OA cases. Third, when we considered abnormal alignment as a risk factor of hip OA, only coronal deformities were evaluated and these deformities are best examined in three dimensions. Fourth, accurate NSAs should be measured on antero-posterior hip radiographs with internal rotation of hip joint. However, our hip radiographs were taken with patellae facing forwards, which could have affected the results regarding NSA. Table III Prevalence of hip OA according to gender, bilaterality, and age Age JSW 2mm JSW 2.5 mm Men Women Men Women N Unilateral OA Bilateral OA N Unilateral OA Bilateral OA N Unilateral OA Bilateral OA N Unilateral OA Bilateral OA 65e69 132 2.3% (0e4.8%) 0 166 0 0 132 9.8% (4.8e14.9%) 1.5% (0e3.6%) 166 6.1% (2.5e9.7%) 3.0% (0.4e5.6%) 70e74 96 1.0% (0e3.1%) 0 111 1.8% (0e4.3%) 0.9% (0e2.7%) 96 5.2% (0.8e9.7%) 2.1% (0e4.9%) 111 11.7% (5.7e17.7%) 2.7% (0e5.7%) 75e 60 1.7% (0e4.9%) 0 109 4.6% (0.7e8.5%) 0.9% (0e2.7%) 60 5.0% (0e10.5%) 3.3% (0e7.9%) 109 19.3% (11.9e26.7%) 11.0% (5.1e16.9%) All 288 1.7% (0.2e3.3%) 0 386 1.8% (0.5e3.1%) 0.5% (0e1.2%) 288 7.3% (4.3e10.3%) 2.1% (0.4e3.7%) 386 9.1% (6.2-e11.9%) 6.7% (4.2e9.2%) Prevalences of hip osteoarthritis are presented as percentage (95% CIs).
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Vol. 18, No. 3 315 Table IV Associations between risk factors and the prevalence of hip OA Risk factor JSW 2 mm JSW 2.5 mm Crude ORs (95% CI) Adjusted ORs (95% CI) Crude ORs (95% CI) Adjusted ORs (95% CI) Demographic risk factors BMI 25 0.8 (0.2e2.7) 0.7 (0.2e2.7) 0.8 (0.5e1.4) 0.8 (0.5e1.4) Age (70yrs) 12.1 (1.6e94.1) 10.0 (1.2e84.9) 2.3 (1.4e3.9) 2.1 (1.2e3.7) Female 3.3 (0.9e12.1) 3.0 (0.8e11.8) 2.1 (1.2e3.6) 2.1 (1.2e3.7) Radiographic risk factors Acetabular dysplasia CEA < 25( 1.9 (0.4e9.9) * 0.7 (0.4e1.2) * CEA < 20( 17.6 (2.1e150.6) 21.0 (0.6e788.0) 4.7 (1.1e21.4) 10.2 (1.8e56.7) Large CEA (40() 1.5 (0.5e4.2) 1.9 (0.6e6.2) 2.2 (1.5e3.2) 2.3 (1.5e3.4) Coxa vara (NSA < 120() NA NA 1.7 (0.6e4.7) * Genu valgum (FTA 10() NA NA 3.0 (1.1e7.8) 2.0 (0.8e5.1) Coxa valga (NSA 140() 7.0 (1.7e28.3) 6.2 (0.8e47.4) 1.8 (0.7e4.9) 1.2 (0.3e5.1) Genu varum (FTA > 0() 0.4 (0.0e3.0) * 1.0 (0.6e1.8) * NA, not applicable due to lack of cases; *, variables were excluded after univariate analysis. Our prevalence of hip OA (at a minimum JSW of 2 mm) was lower than that reported in a western study 27, which was comparable to our study in terms of the definition of OA used, although precise comparisons were not possible as subject ages differed. Nevertheless, this finding is consistent with those of other studies, which have also reported lower prevalences in Asian populations 9e11. However, detailed comparisons with other community population-based studies were not feasible because ages, gender ratios, and definitions of disease differed (Table V). Known risk factors, such as, female, age, and acetabular dysplasia were also identified during the present study. Furthermore, BMI was not found to be a risk factor of hip OA, which concurs with previous results 4,8. However, BMI was added as a risk factor in multivariate analysis because it is believed to be a clinically important factor that could have caused a confounding effect and bias in the result when excluded. Risk factors of hip OA identified at JSW of 2 mm were found to be somewhat different to those identified at a JSW 2.5 mm. However, we do not know whether the risk factors could be different depending on the severity of the disease, but this need more careful interpretation and further studies. In our pilot study, we used both CEA and acetabular depth (<9 mm) 28 to diagnose acetabular dysplasia, which are the two most commonly used parameters used in other previous studies. However, discordance between the two methods was problematic, and eventually we discarded acetabular depth because it is sensitively dependent on sagittal tilting of the pelvis. Elderly people with a degenerative spinal deformity, such as, degenerative kyphosis, degenerative scoliosis, and multiple compression fracture, are to show pelvic tilt when radiographs are taken in the standing position. This may be why the prevalence of acetabular Table V Prevalences of hip osteoarthritis and risk factors in other community population-based studies Study Country No. of subjects (M/F) Age OA definition Prevalence of hip OA Risk factors (OR) Current study Korea 674 (288/386) 65 JSW 2 mm 2.1% Age 70 (10.0) JSW 2.5 mm 13.1% Age 70 (2.1), sex (2.1), CEA < 20( (10.2), CEA 40( (2.3) Johnsen et al. 1 Norway 315 (150/165) 20 K/L 1 6.8% Age (1.1), sex (0.6), CEA (1.0), back pain (2.1) Quintana et al. 29 Spain 7577 (3313/4264) 60e90 Questionnaire 7.4% NA Grotle et al. 2 Norway 3266 (1480/1786) 24 Questionnaire 5.5% Sex (1.5), obesity (1.9), unemployed (3.3), low education (2.1), unmarried (1.1), smoking (1.1) Andrianakos et al. 30 Greece 8740 (4269/4471) 19e99 ACR criteria 0.9% Age 50 (8.1), sex (3.8), obesity (2.3), low education (1.5), smoking (0.9), alcohol (0.8) Jacobsen et al. 27 Denmark 3568 (2232/1336) 20e91 JSW 2 mm 4.4e5.3% Age (1.1), CEA (1.1) (60 yrs) Mannoni et al. 31 Italy 697 (291/406) 65 ACR criteria 7.7% Disability (1.9) Nevitt et al. 11 China 1492 (614/878) 60 Clinical and Less than 1% NA radiographic (JSW 1.5 mm) Hirsch et al. 32 USA (Pima Indian) 755 (292/463) 45 K/L, IRF <10% NA K/L, KellgreneLawrence classification; NA, not applicable; ACR, American College of Rheumatology; IRF, individual radiographic features; sex, female.
316 C. Y. Chung et al.: Hip OA and risk factors dysplasia was reported too high in a previous study (40%) 9. Furthermore, acetabular depth measured on urograms might differ from that measured on hip radiographs. Although mechanical workload has been suggested to be a risk factor of hip OA 8,21, no study has been undertaken to investigate the association between disease and mechanical axes of the lower extremity, which could affect the direction of loads. Instead of evaluating mechanical axes directly, we measured NSA and FTA in this study. We assumed that coxa vara and genu varum are factors that have protective effect in subjects with acetabular dysplasia, because these deformities are likely to exert concentric forces that stabilize hip joints. However, we could not test this hypothesis due to lack of cases. In terms of crude ORs, coxa valga was identified as a significant risk factor when OA was defined as a minimum JSW of 2 mm, and genu valgum (FTA 10 ) was identified as a significant risk factor when OA was defined as a minimum JSW of 2.5 mm. However, neither of those were found to be significant risk factors after multivariate analysis. Our another hypothesis was that a large CEA might be a risk factor of hip OA. We had believed that excessive coverage of the acetabulum could cause a pincer type mechanism of femoroacetabular impingement 17,18. In the present study, a large CEA (40 ) was found to be a significant risk factor when OA was defined as a minimum JSW 2.5 mm. However, care must be taken when interpreting the association between a large CEA and a narrow joint space because osteophyte formation and joint space narrowing can increase CEA although we endeavored to exclude osteophyte measuring CEAs. Accordingly, we do not know whether a large CEA is the cause or the result of hip OA. Narrowing of the joint space can cause an increase in CEA by moving the femoral head center upwards, in the present study, the correlation coefficient between CEA and JSW was 0.312 (P < 0.001). Our subjects were recruited from a community population, and radiographs were taken for musculoskeletal examinations in the weight bearing position not for urologic or gastrointestinal evaluations. Furthermore, we performed GEE models to take into account the correlation between bilateral hips when evaluating the risk factors of hip OA. These are believed to be the strong points of this study. Conflict of interest No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. Acknowledgment The authors especially thank Chong Bum Chang, MD for heartful advice, SungJu Kim, MS for statistical support, and Mi Sun Ryu, BS for collecting data. References 1. Johnsen K, Goll R, Reikeras O. Acetabular dysplasia as an aetiological factor in development of hip osteoarthritis. Int Orthop 2008. 2. Grotle M, Hagen KB, Natvig B, Dahl FA, Kvien TK. Prevalence and burden of osteoarthritis: results from a population survey in Norway. J Rheumatol 2008;35(4):677e84. 3. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Soballe K, Gebuhr P, Lund B. Hip dysplasia and osteoarthrosis: a survey of 4151 subjects from the Osteoarthrosis Substudy of the Copenhagen City Heart Study. Acta Orthop 2005;76(2):149e58. 4. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S. Hip dysplasia: a significant risk factor for the development of hip osteoarthritis. A cross-sectional survey. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44(2):211e8. 5. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Soballe K, Gebuhr P, Lund B. Joint space width in dysplasia of the hip: a caseecontrol study of 81 adults followed for ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87(4):471e7. 6. Lane NE, Nevitt MC, Cooper C, Pressman A, Gore R, Hochberg M. Acetabular dysplasia and osteoarthritis of the hip in elderly white women. Ann Rheum Dis 1997;56(10):627e30. 7. Lane NE, Lin P, Christiansen L, Gore LR, Williams EN, Hochberg MC, et al. Association of mild acetabular dysplasia with an increased risk of incident hip osteoarthritis in elderly white women: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43(2):400e4. 8. Reijman M, Hazes JM, Pols HA, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM. Acetabular dysplasia predicts incident osteoarthritis of the hip: the Rotterdam study. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52(3):787e93. 9. Yoshimura N, Campbell L, Hashimoto T, Kinoshita H, Okayasu T, Wilman C, et al. Acetabular dysplasia and hip osteoarthritis in Britain and Japan. Br J Rheumatol 1998;37(11):1193e7. 10. Inoue K, Wicart P, Kawasaki T, Huang J, Ushiyama T, Hukuda S, et al. Prevalence of hip osteoarthritis and acetabular dysplasia in French and Japanese adults. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39(7):745e8. 11. Nevitt MC, Xu L, Zhang Y, Lui L, Yu W, Lane NE, et al. Very low prevalence of hip osteoarthritis among Chinese elderly in Beijing, China, compared with whites in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46(7):1773e9. 12. Goker B, Sancak A, Haznedaroglu S. Radiographic hip osteoarthritis and acetabular dysplasia in Turkish men and women. Rheumatol Int 2005;25(6):419e22. 13. Lau EM, Lin F, Lam D, Silman A, Croft P. Hip osteoarthritis and dysplasia in Chinese men. Ann Rheum Dis 1995;54(12):965e9. 14. Ali-Gombe A, Croft PR, Silman AJ. Osteoarthritis of the hip and acetabular dysplasia in Nigerian men. J Rheumatol 1996;23(3):512e5. 15. Ingvarsson T, Hagglund G, Lohmander LS. Prevalence of hip osteoarthritis in Iceland. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58(4):201e7. 16. Hoaglund FT, Steinbach LS. Primary osteoarthritis of the hip: etiology and epidemiology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2001;9(5):320e7. 17. Ganz R, Leunig M, Leunig-Ganz K, Harris WH. The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip: an integrated mechanical concept. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466(2):264e72. 18. Leunig M, Beaule PE, Ganz R. The concept of femoroacetabular impingement: current status and future perspectives. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(3):616e22. 19. Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1939;58:1e132. 20. Lanyon P, Muir K, Doherty S, Doherty M. Ageandsexdifferences inhipjoint space among asymptomatic subjects without structural change: implications for epidemiologic studies. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48(4):1041e6. 21. Jacobsen S. Adult hip dysplasia and osteoarthritis. Studies in radiology and clinical epidemiology. Acta Orthop Suppl 2006;77(324):1e37. 22. Birrell F, Lunt M, Macfarlane G, Silman A. Association between pain in the hip region and radiographic changes of osteoarthritis: results from a population-based study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44(3):337e41. 23. Nevitt MC. Definition of hip osteoarthritis for epidemiological studies. Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55(9):652e5. 24. Croft P, Cooper C, Wickham C, Coggon D. Defining osteoarthritis of the hip for epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132(3):514e22. 25. Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med 2002;21(9):1331e5. 26. Zhang Y, Glynn RJ, Felson DT. Musculoskeletal disease research: should we analyze the joint or the person? J Rheumatol 1996;23(7):1130e4. 27. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Soballe K, Gebuhr P, Lund B. Radiographic case definitions and prevalence of osteoarthrosis of the hip: a survey of 4 151 subjects in the Osteoarthritis Substudy of the Copenhagen City Heart Study. Acta Orthop Scand 2004;75(6):713e20. 28. Murray RO. The aetiology of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. Br J Radiol 1965;38(455):810e24. 29. Quintana JM, Arostegui I, Escobar A, Azkarate J, Goenaga JI, Lafuente I. Prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis and the appropriateness of joint replacement in an older population. Arch Intern Med 2008;168(14):1576e84. 30. Andrianakos AA, Kontelis LK, Karamitsos DG, Aslanidis SI, Georgountzos AI, Kaziolas GO, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic knee, hand, and hip osteoarthritis in Greece. The ESORDIG study. J Rheumatol 2006;33(12):2507e13. 31. Mannoni A, Briganti MP, Di Bari M, Ferrucci L, Costanzo S, Serni U, et al. Epidemiological profile of symptomatic osteoarthritis in older adults: a population based study in Dicomano, Italy. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62(6):576e8. 32. Hirsch R, Fernandes RJ, Pillemer SR, Hochberg MC, Lane NE, Altman RD, et al. Hip osteoarthritis prevalence estimates by three radiographic scoring systems. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41(2):361e8.