Literature DB >> 27278677

Hips With Protrusio Acetabuli Are at Increased Risk for Failure After Femoroacetabular Impingement Surgery: A 10-year Followup.

Markus S Hanke1, Simon D Steppacher2, Corinne A Zurmühle2, Klaus A Siebenrock2, Moritz Tannast2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Protrusio acetabuli is a rare anatomic pattern of the hip in which the femoral head protrudes into the true pelvis. The increased depth of the hip and the excessive size of the lunate surface typically lead to severe pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI); however, to our knowledge, there are no published mid- or long-term studies on results of circumferential acetabular rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation for patients with this condition. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the 10-year survivorship of the hips treated with circumferential rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation compared with a control group of hips that underwent surgery for pincer FAI but that did not have protrusio acetabuli? (2) What are the factors that were associated with a decreased likelihood of survivorship in those hips with the following endpoints: total hip arthroplasty, Merle d'Aubigné score of less than 15, and/or radiographic progression of osteoarthritis (OA)? (3) Does the radiographic pattern of degeneration differ between the two groups?
METHODS: We performed a case-control study comparing two groups: a protrusio group (32 patients [39 hips]) and a control group (66 patients [86 hips]). The control group consisted of hips treated with a surgical hip dislocation for pincer FAI and did not include hips with a positive protrusio sign or a lateral center-edge angle > 39°. The study group did not differ from the control group regarding the preoperative Tönnis OA score, age, and body mass index. However, the study group had more women, decreased mean height and weight, and lower preoperative Merle d'Aubigné-Postel scores, which were inherent differences at the time of first presentation. During the period in question, the indication for performing these procedures was a painfully restricted range of motion in flexion and internal rotation (positive impingement sign). The mean followup of the protrusio group (9 ± 5 years [range, 2-18 years]) did not differ from the control group (11 ± 1 years [range, 10-13 years], p = 0.109). At the respective minimum followup intervals in the underlying database from which cases and control subjects were drawn, followup was 100% for patients with protrusion who underwent FAI surgery and 97% for patients with FAI who underwent surgery for other anatomic patterns (three of 86 hips). We assessed the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score, Harris hip score, WOMAC, and UCLA activity score at latest followup. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis of the hip was calculated if any of the following endpoints for both groups occurred: conversion to total hip arthroplasty, a Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score < 15, and/or radiographic progression of OA. Differences in survivorship were analyzed using the log-rank test.
RESULTS: At 10-year followup, we found a decreased survivorship of the hip for the protrusio group (51% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 34%-67%]) compared with the control group (83% [95% CI, 75%-91%], p < 0.001) with one or more of the endpoints stated. We found four multivariate factors associated with a decreased likelihood of survival of the native hip according to the mentioned endpoints: body mass index > 25 kg/m(2) (adjusted hazard ratio, 6.4; 95% CI, 5.2-8.1; p = 0.009), a preoperative Tönnis OA score ≥ 1 (13.3; 95% CI, 11.8-14.9; p = 0.001), a postoperative lateral center-edge angle > 40° (4.2; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6; p = 0.042), and a postoperative posterior coverage > 56% (6.0; 95% CI, 4.3-7.6; p = 0.037). Preoperatively, joint space narrowing and osteophytes were more frequent posteroinferior (joint space narrowing 18% versus 2%, p = 0.008; osteophytes 21% versus 4%, p = 0.007), medial (joint space narrowing 33% versus 5%, p < 0.001) and  anterior (osteophytes 15% versus 1%, p = 0.004) in the protrusio compared with the control group. After correction in hips with protrusio, progression of joint space narrowing (from 6% to 45%, p = 0.001) and osteophyte formation (from 15% to 52%, p = 0.002) was most pronounced laterally.
CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, in 51% of all hips undergoing open acetabular rim trimming for protrusio acetabuli, the hip can be preserved without further radiographic degeneration and a Merle d'Aubigné score > 15. Even with the lack of a control group with nonoperative treatment, isolated rim trimming may not entirely resolve the pathomorphology in protrusio hips given the clearly inferior results compared with surgical hip dislocation for FAI without severe overcoverage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27278677      PMCID: PMC5014816          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4918-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  48 in total

1.  Arthroscopic debridement versus refixation of the acetabular labrum associated with femoroacetabular impingement: mean 3.5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Christopher M Larson; M Russell Giveans; Rebecca M Stone
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Tilt and rotation correction of acetabular version on pelvic radiographs.

Authors:  M Tannast; G Zheng; C Anderegg; K Burckhardt; F Langlotz; R Ganz; K A Siebenrock
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Ischial spine projection into the pelvis : a new sign for acetabular retroversion.

Authors:  Fabian Kalberer; Rafael J Sierra; Sanjeev S Madan; Reinhold Ganz; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-02-10       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  What are the radiographic reference values for acetabular under- and overcoverage?

Authors:  Moritz Tannast; Markus S Hanke; Guoyan Zheng; Simon D Steppacher; Klaus A Siebenrock
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Size and shape of the lunate surface in different types of pincer impingement: theoretical implications for surgical therapy.

Authors:  S D Steppacher; T D Lerch; K Gharanizadeh; E F Liechti; S F Werlen; M Puls; M Tannast; K A Siebenrock
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 6.576

6.  Midterm results of surgical hip dislocation for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Hermes H Miozzari; Michael Schär; Tobias Hesper; Hubert P Nötzli
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Protrusio acetabuli: contraindication or indication for hip arthroscopy? And the case for arthroscopic treatment of global pincer impingement.

Authors:  Dean K Matsuda
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 8.  Protrusio acetabuli: diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  M T McBride; M P Muldoon; R F Santore; R T Trousdale; D R Wenger
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.020

9.  Assessing activity in joint replacement patients.

Authors:  C A Zahiri; T P Schmalzried; E S Szuszczewicz; H C Amstutz
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome.

Authors:  S B Murphy; R Ganz; M E Müller
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  10 in total

1.  Do dGEMRIC and T2 Imaging Correlate With Histologic Cartilage Degeneration in an Experimental Ovine FAI Model?

Authors:  Florian Schmaranzer; Larissa Arendt; Emanuel F Liechti; Katja Nuss; Brigitte von Rechenberg; Patrick R Kircher; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  CORR Insights®: Is Increased Acetabular Cartilage or Fossa Size Associated With Pincer Femoroacetabular Impingement?

Authors:  James D Wylie
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  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

4.  Acetabular labral reconstruction with medial meniscal allograft: preliminary results of a new surgical technique.

Authors:  Michael J Chen; Ian Hollyer; Stephanie Y Pun; Michael J Bellino
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-05-24

5.  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

6.  Management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: current insights.

Authors:  Jeremiah J Maupin; Garrett Steinmetz; Rishi Thakral
Journal:  Orthop Res Rev       Date:  2019-08-27

7.  Musculoskeletal diseases in Marfan syndrome: a nationwide registry study.

Authors:  Niels H Andersen; Ellen-Margrethe Hauge; Thomas Baad-Hansen; Kristian A Groth; Agnethe Berglund; Claus H Gravholt; Kirstine Stochholm
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2022-03-05       Impact factor: 4.123

Review 8.  [Imaging in joint-preserving hip surgery].

Authors:  M K Meier; T D Lerch; M S Hanke; M Tannast; S D Steppacher; F Schmaranzer
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 0.635

9.  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

10.  Hip preservation surgery and the acetabular fossa.

Authors:  Pablo A Slullitel; Daniel Coutu; Martin A Buttaro; Paul Edgar Beaule; George Grammatopoulos
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 4.410

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.