Literature DB >> 19085494

Comparison of the minimally invasive and ilioinguinal approaches for periacetabular osteotomy: 263 single-surgeon procedures in well-defined study groups.

Anders Troelsen1, Brian Elmengaard, Kjeld Søballe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Periacetabular osteotomy is the treatment of choice in young adults with hip dysplasia. Patient morbidity and surgical outcome may depend on the choice of surgical approach. We compared the outcome of a new minimally invasive approach to that of the frequently used "classic" ilioinguinal approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated our experience with the ilioinguinal and minimally invasive approaches, which were used in successive time periods at our institution between December 1998 and February 2007 (n=263). Intraoperative and early postoperative outcome factors together with analysis of hip joint survival were compared in well-defined study groups.
RESULTS: In the minimally invasive and ilioinguinal groups respectively, the median (interquartile range) intraoperative blood loss was 250 (200-350) mL and 500 (350-700) mL (p<0.001), the mean (95% CI) hemoglobin reduction was 2.0 (1.9-2.1) mmol/L and 2.5 (2.4-2.7) mmol/L (p<0.001), transfusion was required following 4% and 18% of the procedures (p<0.001), and the median (interquartile range) duration of surgery was 70 (60-75) min and 100 (80-120) min (p<0.001). Median (interquartile range) postoperative center-edge and acetabular index angles were 33 (30-36) and 2 (0-6), respectively, in the minimally invasive group and 31 (25-35) and 9 (1-14) in the ilioinguinal group. There were no cases of moderate or severe complications in the minimally invasive group and 3 cases of arterial thrombosis in the ilioinguinal group (3%). At follow-up of 5 years, the hip joint survival rates were 97% in the minimally invasive group and 93% in the ilioinguinal group.
INTERPRETATION: Given the accumulated experience of the surgeon, the outcome of the minimally invasive approach compares favorably with that of the ilioinguinal approach, and the results support continued use of the minimally invasive approach for periacetabular osteotomy. Using this approach, we did not encounter any complications and acetabular reorientation was not compromized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19085494     DOI: 10.1080/17453670810016849

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop        ISSN: 1745-3674            Impact factor:   3.717


  12 in total

1.  Periacetabular osteotomy through the pararectus approach: technical feasibility and control of fragment mobility by a validated surgical navigation system in a cadaver experiment.

Authors:  Li Liu; Guoyan Zheng; Johannes Dominik Bastian; Marius Johann Baptist Keel; Lutz Peter Nolte; Klaus Arno Siebenrock; Timo Michael Ecker
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy: is transection of the rectus femoris tendon essential?

Authors:  Eduardo N Novais; Young-Jo Kim; Patrick M Carry; Michael B Millis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  CORR Insights®: Does Surgeon Experience Impact the Risk of Complications After Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy?

Authors:  Veronika Kralj-Iglič
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Pose Estimation of Periacetabular Osteotomy Fragments With Intraoperative X-Ray Navigation.

Authors:  Robert B Grupp; Rachel A Hegeman; Ryan J Murphy; Clayton P Alexander; Yoshito Otake; Benjamin A McArthur; Mehran Armand; Russell H Taylor
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Preservation of the rectus femoris origin during periacetabular osteotomy does not compromise acetabular reorientation.

Authors:  Christopher L Peters; Jill A Erickson; Mike B Anderson; Lucas A Anderson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  What factors predict failure 4 to 12 years after periacetabular osteotomy?

Authors:  Charlotte Hartig-Andreasen; Anders Troelsen; Theis Muncholm Thillemann; Kjeld Søballe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Endoscopic hip osteotomies: less invasive approaches to peri-acetabular, proximal femoral and pubic symphyseal procedures.

Authors:  Dean K Matsuda; Nicole A Matsuda
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2015-06-06

8.  Comment on Mittal et al: Defining the lateral edge of the femoroacetabular articulation: correlation analysis between radiographs and computed tomography.

Authors:  N Egund
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 1.548

9.  What level of pain reduction can be expected up to two years after periacetabular osteotomy? A prospective cohort study of 146 patients.

Authors:  Søren Reinhold Jakobsen; Inger Mechlenburg; Kjeld Søballe; Stig Storgaard Jakobsen
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2018-08-10

10.  Anatomical variants of the rectus femoris motor innervation.

Authors:  Dominic Plante; Nicolas Janelle; Mathieu Angers-Goulet; Philippe Corbeil; Mohamad Ali Takech; Etienne L Belzile
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2019-06-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.