| Literature DB >> 27011803 |
Carl R Freeman1, Michael G Azzam1, Michael Leunig1.
Abstract
Despite its widespread usage, the hip preservation surgery can be most accurately described as a hypothesis that surgery can preserve a hip and prevent the need for arthroplasty. This premise has not been fully investigated to date, and there exist few summaries of the underlying evidence in regard to the basis of this terminology. This study seeks to define the hip preservation surgery, and then examines this premise critically in the context of treatment for its most commonly treated condition-femoroacetabular impingement. Finally, we report the current level of preservation of the hip that can be expected with current techniques.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 27011803 PMCID: PMC4765290 DOI: 10.1093/jhps/hnu015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hip Preserv Surg ISSN: 2054-8397
Hip preservation surgery
| Techniques |
| PAO |
| Surgical dislocation of the hip |
| Proximal femoral osteotomies |
| Hip arthroscopy |
| Procedures |
| Acetabular reorientation |
| Acetabuloplasty |
| Labral repair/reconstruction |
| Cartilage restoration |
| Femoroplasty |
| Femoral reorientation |
Hip preservation surgery: conditions
| Hip dysplasias |
| FAI |
| Other hip impingements |
| Sequelae of Legg-Calvé-Perthes' |
| Hip cartilage injuries |
| Coxa valga/vara |
Advantages and limitations of each surgical technique
| Advantages | Limitations | |
|---|---|---|
| Surgical dislocation of the hip | Access to the entire femoral head and neck | Potential complications of symptomatic hardware and non-union |
| Optimal visualization for correction of deformity | ||
| Ability to confirm sphericity with open templates | Increased blood loss | |
| Treatment of intra-articular cartilage defects | Ligamentum teres disruption | |
| Open dynamic assessment of impingement | Potential for prolonged rehabilitation | |
| Ability to perform other correction procedures | ||
| Hip arthroscopy | Minimally invasive | Traction-related complications and nerve injury |
| Potential reduced pain | Steep learning curve | |
| Can be an outpatient procedure | Incomplete access and correction of deformity | |
| Potentially faster rehabilitation | Inability to directly confirm restoration of sphericity/offset | |
| Potentially reduced soft-tissue injury | Potential for iatrogenic chondral injury | |
| Fluid extravasation and abdominal compartment syndrome | ||
| Portal complications (lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury) | ||
| PAO | Ability to change acetabular orientation | Very invasive, with a relatively high rate of complications |
| Can treat pincer FAI without reducing coverage | Increased blood loss | |
| Can address dysplasia or severe acetabular retroversion | Much slower rehabilitation | |
| Long learning curve | ||
| Ability to perform other correction procedures | ||
| Table modified from Zaltz |
Outcome studies
| Study [reference] | Hips | Level of evidence | Study years | Mean follow-up | Approach | Mean age | Outcome score | Pre-operative score | Post-operative score | THA | THA% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-term outcomes | Espinosa | 25 | 3 | 1999–2001 | 24 months | Dislocation with labral resection | 30 | Merle d’Aubigné | 12 | 15 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Espinosa | 35 | 3 | 2001–02 | 24 months | Dislocation with labral repair | 30 | Merle d’Aubigné | 12 | 17 | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Graves and Mast 2009 [ | 48 | 4 | 2000–03 | 38 months | Dislocation | 33 | Merle d’Aubigné | 13 | 17 | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Philippon | 112 | 2 | 2005 | 28 months | Arthroscopy | 40 | mHHS | 58 | 84 | 10 | 8.9% | |
| Brunner | 53 | 4 | N/A | 28 months | Arthroscopy | 42 | NAHS | 54 | 86 | N/A | ||
| Horisberger | 105 | 4 | 2004–07 | 29 months | Arthroscopy | 46 | NAHS | 57 | 85 | 9 | 8.6% | |
| Chiron | 118 | 3 | 2005–10 | 26 months | Open with labral excision | 34 | mHHS, NAHS, WOMAC | 63,59,33 | 93,91,5 | 4 | 3.4% | |
| Parvizi | 156 | 4 | 2006–11 | 27 months | Mini-open with labral repair | 32 | mHHS, UCLA,WOMAC | 58,6,45 | 86,8,11 | 11 | 7.1% | |
| Larson | 44 | 3 | 2006–07 | 42 months | Arthroscopy—labral debridement | 32 | mHHS | 65 | 85 | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Larson | 50 | 3 | 2006–07 | 42 months | Arthroscopy—labral repair | 28 | mHHS | 65 | 94 | 1 | 2.0% | |
| Palmer | 210 | 4 | 2005–08 | 46 months | Arthroscopy | 40 | NAHS | 56 | 78 | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Clohisy | 35 | 4 | 2003–05 | 26 months | Arthroscopy with limited open | 34 | mHHS | 64 | 87 | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Byrd and Jones 2009 [ | 100 | 4 | 2003–06 | 24 months | Arthroscopy | 34 | mHHS | 65 | 87 | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Nho | 47 | 4 | 2007–08 | 27 months | Arthroscopy | 23 | mHHS | 69 | 86 | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Philippon | 153 | 4 | 2006–08 | 36 months | Arthroscopy | 57 | mHHS | 58b | 84b | 31 | 20.3% | |
| Weighted mean of short-term outcomes | 1291 | 29 months | 36 | 66 | 5.1% | |||||||
| Mid-term outcomes | McCarthy | 111 | 4 | 1989–97 | 13 years | Arthroscopy | 39 | NAHS | NA | 87b | 49 | 44.1% |
| Byrd and Jones 2009 [ | 31 | 4 | 1993–98 | 10 years | Arthroscopy | 46 | mHHS | 56 | 81 | 7 | 22.6% | |
| Meftah | 50 | 2 | 1996–2003 | 8.4 years | Arthroscopy | 40 | mHHS | 79 | 92 | 2 | 4.0% | |
| Murphy | 23 | 4 | 1990–2002 | 5.2 years | Open | 35 | Merle d’Aubigné | 13 | 17 | 7 | 30.4% | |
| Naal | 233 | 4 | 2003–06 | 5.1 years | Open | 30 | WOMAC | NA | 10 | 7 | 3.0% | |
| Steppacher | 97 | 4 | 2001–13 | 5 years | Dislocation with labral repair | 32 | Merle d’Aubigné | 15 | 17 | 7 | 7.2% | |
| Laude | 94 | 2 | 1999–2004 | 4.8 years | Combined | 33 | NAHS | 55 | 84 | 11 | 11.7% | |
| Beck | 19 | 4 | 1996–97 | 4.7 years | Open | 36 | Merle d’Aubigné | 14 | 17 | 5 | 26.3% | |
| Weighted mean of mid-term outcomes | 658 | 6.8 years | 34 | 95 | 14.4% |
N/A, not available.
aEstimated, bexcluding patients who went on to receive THA.