Literature DB >> 27646418

Do Radiographic Parameters of Dysplasia Improve to Normal Ranges After Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy?

Eduardo N Novais1, Stephen Duncan2, Jeffrey Nepple3, Gail Pashos3, Perry L Schoenecker4, John C Clohisy5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is to improve the insufficient coverage of the femoral head and achieve joint stability without creating secondary femoroacetabular impingement. However, the complex tridimensional morphology of the dysplastic acetabulum presents a challenge to restoration of normal radiographic parameters. Accurate acetabular correction is important to achieve long-term function and pain improvement. There are limited data about the proportion of patients who have normal radiographic parameters restored after PAO and the factors associated with under- and overcorrection. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of patients undergoing PAO in which the acetabular correction as assessed by the lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), anterior center-edge angle (ACEA), acetabular inclination (AI), and extrusion index (EI) is within defined target ranges? (2) What patient and preoperative factors are associated with undercorrection of the acetabulum as defined by a LCEA < 22°, a factor that has been reported to be associated with PAO failure at 10-year followup?
METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2011 we performed 132 PAOs in 116 patients for treatment of symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. One patient with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, one with multiple osteochondromatosis, and two with concomitant femoral osteotomy were excluded. A total of 128 hips (112 patients) were included. The hip cohort was 76% (97 of 128) female and the mean age at surgery was 28.5 years (SD 8.7 years). Correction of LCEA between 25° and 40°, ACEA between 18° and 38°, Tönnis angle between 0° and 10°, and EI ≤ 20% were defined as adequate based on normative values. Values lower than the established parameters were considered undercorrection for the LCEA and ACEA and those higher than the established values were considered overcorrection. Because postoperative LCEA < 22o has been previously associated with PAO failure at a minimum of 10-year followup, in this study we sought to measure whether demographic factors including age, gender, body mass index, and severity of acetabular dysplasia assessed by preoperative LCEA, ACEA, AI, and EI were associated with undercorrection. Postoperative radiographs were obtained at minimum of 1 month after surgery (mean, 7 months; range, 1-44 months) and were measured by a professional research assistant and a hip reconstruction fellow not involved in the clinical care of the patients. No patient was lost to followup.
RESULTS: Of the 128 hips, the proportion of hips with radiographic parameters within the established range was 78% (100 hips) for the LCEA, 86% (110 hips) for the ACEA, 89% (114 hips) for the AI, and 80% (102 hips) for the EI. For hips with an inadequate correction, the LCEA was more often undercorrected than overcorrected (20% versus 2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11%-27%; p < 0.001), whereas the ACEA was more often overcorrected than undercorrected (11% versus 3%; 95% CI, 1%-15%; p = 0.03) After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and preoperative radiographic parameters including ACEA, AI, and EI, we found that the preoperative LCEA was the only independent factor associated with a postoperative LCEA < 22° (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; p = 0.003), indicating that hips with lower preoperative LCEA were more likely to have a LCEA < 22°. For each additional degree of preoperative LCEA, the odds of LCEA < 22° were reduced by 15%.
CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular correction after PAO performed by two experienced surgeons was adequate for individual radiographic parameters in most but not all hips. Hips with more severe dysplasia preoperatively are at higher risk for undercorrection as assessed by the LCEA. This intuitive information may help surgeons performing PAO in severely dysplastic hips plan for possible combined procedures including a femoral osteotomy if PAO alone does not allow for adequate correction of femoral head coverage and a congruous concentric hip. Further studies are planned to determine whether the long-term hip function and pain in patients whose hips were corrected within these established parameters will be improved in comparison to those that were under- or overcorrected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27646418      PMCID: PMC5339125          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-5077-8

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


  38 in total

1.  Radiographic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability.

Authors:  John C Clohisy; John C Carlisle; Robert Trousdale; Young-Jo Kim; Paul E Beaule; Patrick Morgan; Karen Steger-May; Perry L Schoenecker; Michael Millis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip.

Authors:  John C Clohisy; John C Carlisle; Paul E Beaulé; Young-Jo Kim; Robert T Trousdale; Rafael J Sierra; Michael Leunig; Perry L Schoenecker; Michael B Millis
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 3.  The acetabular rim syndrome. A clinical presentation of dysplasia of the hip.

Authors:  K Klaue; C W Durnin; R Ganz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-05

4.  Pelvic orientation and assessment of hip dysplasia in adults.

Authors:  Steffen Jacobsen; Stig Sonne-Holm; Bjarne Lund; Kjeld Søballe; Thomas Kiaer; Hans Rovsing; Henrik Monrad
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2004-12

5.  The periacetabular osteotomy. Minimum 2 year followup in more than 100 hips.

Authors:  S J Trumble; K A Mayo; J W Mast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Bernese periacetabular osteotomy.

Authors:  K A Siebenrock; E Schöll; M Lottenbach; R Ganz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Reliability of various observers in determining common radiographic parameters of adult hip structural anatomy.

Authors:  John C Carlisle; Lukas P Zebala; Derek S Shia; Devyani Hunt; Patrick M Morgan; Heidi Prather; Rick W Wright; Karen Steger-May; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2011

8.  Periacetabular osteotomy for acetabular dysplasia in patients older than 40 years: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Michael B Millis; Michael Kain; Rafael Sierra; Robert Trousdale; Michael J Taunton; Young-Jo Kim; Scott B Rosenfeld; Ganesh Kamath; Perry Schoenecker; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  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

10.  Medial translation of the hip joint center associated with the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy.

Authors:  John C Clohisy; Susan E Barrett; J Eric Gordon; Eliana D Delgado; Perry L Schoenecker
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2004
View more
  9 in total

1.  Statistical shape modeling of femur shape variability in female patients with hip dysplasia.

Authors:  Brecca M M Gaffney; Travis J Hillen; Jeffrey J Nepple; John C Clohisy; Michael D Harris
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  Joint contact stresses calculated for acetabular dysplasia patients using discrete element analysis are significantly influenced by the applied gait pattern.

Authors:  Holly D Thomas-Aitken; Michael C Willey; Jessica E Goetz
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Effect of simulated rehabilitation on hip joint loading during single limb squat in patients with hip dysplasia.

Authors:  Brecca M M Gaffney; Marcie Harris-Hayes; John C Clohisy; Michael D Harris
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 4.  Preoperative planning for redirective, periacetabular osteotomies.

Authors:  Christoph E Albers; Piet Rogers; Nicholas Wambeek; Sufian S Ahmad; Piers J Yates; Gareth H Prosser
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2017-09-14

5.  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

6.  What are the significant factors affecting pain in patients with Hartofilakidis type Ι developmental dysplasia of the hip?

Authors:  Yange Gu; Wenshu Jin; Han Zhang; Zhiwei Shi; Yaohui Yue; Zhaolong Yan; Zhang Zhao; Shufeng Li; Xinfeng Yan
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-10-18       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Three-dimensional acetabular orientation during periacetabular osteotomy: a video analysis of acetabular rim position using an external fixator as navigation tool during reorientation procedure.

Authors:  Timo J Schwarz; Günther Maderbacher; Franziska Leiss; Joachim Grifka; G Heers; J Matussek
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-10-24       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 8.  Complications of hip preserving surgery.

Authors:  Markus S Hanke; Till D Lerch; Florian Schmaranzer; Malin K Meier; Simon D Steppacher; Klaus A Siebenrock
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-06-28

9.  What the papers say.

Authors:  Ajay Malviya
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2016-11-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.