Literature DB >> 26712890

Midterm Outcomes of Reverse (Anteverting) Periacetabular Osteotomy in Patients With Hip Impingement Secondary to Acetabular Retroversion.

Joshua A Parry1, Russell P Swann1, Jill A Erickson2, Christopher L Peters2, Robert T Trousdale1, Rafael J Sierra3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on the results of reverse (anteverting) periacetabular osteotomy (RPAO) for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) secondary to acetabular retroversion.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the midterm outcomes of RPAO for FAI secondary to acetabular retroversion in those with and without hip dysplasia. STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: A retrospective review identified RPAOs performed on patients with acetabular retroversion in isolation or in the setting of dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] ≤19°). Acetabular retroversion with FAI was diagnosed clinically and radiographically, with a positive crossover and posterior wall signs on pelvic radiographs. Twenty-three patients (30 hips) met the inclusion criteria; 20 hips with isolated retroversion and 10 hips with retroversion and hip dysplasia. The average age at the time of the procedure was 26 years (range, 13-45 years). The average length of follow-up was 5 years (range, 2-19 years). Harris Hip Score (HHS) and radiographs were evaluated preoperatively and at last follow-up.
RESULTS: The mean preoperative LCEA was 31° (range, 22°-49°) in the isolated retroversion group and 9° (range, -4° to 17°) in the dysplastic group. Postoperatively, the LCEA in the dysplastic group increased to 35° (range, 15°-46°) (P = .0001). The crossover sign corrected in 55% (11/20) of the isolated retroversion group and 80% (8/10) of the dysplastic group. The acetabular index (mean ± SD) improved from 1.3 ± 0.3 to 1.7 ± 0.6 (P = .0001), indicating improved anteversion. At the latest follow-up, the average HHS in the isolated retroversion group increased from 58 preoperatively (range, 23-77) to 93 (range, 68-100) (P = .0001); the HHS in the dysplastic group improved from 49 (range, 20-74) to 92 (range, 77-100) (P < .0001). Complication rates were similar in both groups. Excluding hardware removal, additional surgeries were performed in 13% (4/30).
CONCLUSION: RPAO performed for FAI in the young patient with isolated acetabular retroversion or retroversion in the setting of dysplasia successfully improved clinical and radiographic results at mid- to long-term follow-up.
© 2015 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  acetabular retroversion; femoroacetabular impingement; hip dysplasia; periacetabular osteotomy

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26712890     DOI: 10.1177/0363546515620382

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  13 in total

1.  Periacetabular Osteotomy Provides Higher Survivorship Than Rim Trimming for Acetabular Retroversion.

Authors:  Corinne A Zurmühle; Helen Anwander; Christoph E Albers; Markus S Hanke; Simon D Steppacher; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Incidence of Femoroacetabular Impingement and Surgical Management Trends Over Time.

Authors:  Rena F Hale; Heath P Melugin; Jun Zhou; Matthew D LaPrade; Christopher Bernard; Devin Leland; Bruce A Levy; Aaron J Krych
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 6.202

3.  Changes in chondrolabral mechanics, coverage, and congruency following peri-acetabular osteotomy for treatment of acetabular retroversion: A patient-specific finite element study.

Authors:  Spencer J Knight; Christine L Abraham; Christopher L Peters; Jeffrey A Weiss; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  Automatic MRI-based Three-dimensional Models of Hip Cartilage Provide Improved Morphologic and Biochemical Analysis.

Authors:  Florian Schmaranzer; Ronja Helfenstein; Guodong Zeng; Till D Lerch; Eduardo N Novais; James D Wylie; Young-Jo Kim; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast; Guoyan Zheng
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Periacetabular Osteotomy Improves Pain and Function in Patients With Lateral Center-edge Angle Between 18° and 25°, but Are These Hips Really Borderline Dysplastic?

Authors:  Michael P McClincy; James D Wylie; Young-Jo Kim; Michael B Millis; Eduardo N Novais
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  What Are the Early Outcomes of True Reverse Periacetabular Osteotomy for Symptomatic Hip Overcoverage?

Authors:  Stephanie Y Pun; Shayan Hosseinzadeh; Roya Dastjerdi; Michael B Millis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Do acetabular parameters measured on 2D imaging correlate with CT, and can lateral centre-edge angle predict femoral head coverage?

Authors:  Saif Salih; George Grammatopoulos; Sophia Burns; Margaret Hall-Craggs; Johan Witt
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-01

8.  Best Practices: Hip Femoroacetabular Impingement.

Authors:  Florian Schmaranzer; Arvin B Kheterpal; Miriam A Bredella
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  What the Papers Say.

Authors:  Ajay Malviya
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2016-03-25

10.  Arthroscopic Treatment of Acetabular Retroversion With Acetabuloplasty and Subspine Decompression: A Matched Comparison With Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Treatment for Focal Pincer-Type Femoroacetabular Impingement.

Authors:  Sergio E Flores; Caitlin C Chambers; Kristina R Borak; Alan L Zhang
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-07-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.