Literature DB >> 27921206

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

Corinne A Zurmühle1, Helen Anwander1, Christoph E Albers1, Markus S Hanke1, Simon D Steppacher1, Klaus A Siebenrock1, Moritz Tannast2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acetabular retroversion can cause impaction-type femoroacetabular impingement leading to hip pain and osteoarthritis. It can be treated by anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) or acetabular rim trimming with refixation of the labrum. There is increasing evidence that acetabular retroversion is a rotational abnormality of the entire hemipelvis and not a focal overgrowth of the anterior acetabular wall, which favors an anteverting PAO. However, it is unknown if this larger procedure would be beneficial in terms of survivorship and Merle d'Aubigné scores in a midterm followup compared with rim trimming. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked if anteverting PAO results in increased survivorship of the hip compared with rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation in patients with symptomatic acetabular retroversion.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective, comparative study evaluating the midterm survivorship of two matched patient groups with symptomatic acetabular retroversion undergoing either anteverting PAO or acetabular rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation. Acetabular retroversion was defined by a concomitantly present positive crossover, posterior wall, and ischial spine sign. A total of 279 hips underwent a surgical intervention for acetabular retroversion at our center between 1997 and 2012 (166 periacetabular osteotomies, 113 rim trimmings through surgical hip dislocation). A total of 99 patients (60%) were excluded from the PAO group and 56 patients (50%) from the rim trimming group because they had any of several prespecified conditions (eg, dysplasia or pediatric conditions 61 [37%] for the PAO group and two [2%] for the rim trimming group), matching (10 [6%]/10 [9%] hips), deficient records (10 [6%]/13 [12%] hips), or the patient declined or was lost to followup (18 [11%]/31 [27%] hips). This left 67 hips (57 patients) that underwent anteverting PAO and 57 hips (52 patients) that had acetabular rim trimming. The two groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, body mass index, preoperative ROM, preoperative Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score, radiographic morphology of the acetabulum (except total and anterior acetabular coverage), alpha angle, Tönnis grade of osteoarthritis, and labral and chondral lesions on the preoperative MRI. During the period in question, we generally performed PAO from 1997 to 2003. With the availability of surgical hip dislocation and labral refixation, we generally performed rim trimming from 2004 to 2010. With growing knowledge of the underlying pathomorphology, anteverting PAOs became more common again around 2007 to 2008. A minimum followup of 2 years was required for this study. Failures were included at any time. The median followup for the anteverting PAO group was 9.5 years (range, 2-17.4 years) and 6.8 years (range, 2.2-10.5 years) for the rim trimming group (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed using the following endpoints at 5 and 10 years: THA, radiographic progression of osteoarthritis by one Tönnis grade, and/or Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score < 15 points.
RESULTS: Although the 5-year survivorship of the two groups was not different with the numbers available (86% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 76%-94%] for anteverting PAO versus 86% [95% CI, 76%-96%] for acetabular rim trimming), we found increased survivorship at 10 years in hips undergoing anteverting PAO for acetabular retroversion (79% [95% CI, 68%-90%]) compared with acetabular rim trimming (23% [95% CI, 6%-40%]) at 10 years (p < 0.001). The drop in the survivorship curve for the acetabular rim trimming through surgical hip dislocation group started at Year 6. The main reason for failure was a decreased Merle d'Aubigné score.
CONCLUSIONS: Anteverting PAO may be the more appropriate treatment for hips with substantial acetabular retroversion. This may be the result of reduction of an already smaller lunate surface of hips with acetabular retroversion through rim trimming. However, rim trimming may still benefit hips with acetabular retroversion in which only one or two of the three signs are positive. Future randomized studies should compare these treatments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27921206      PMCID: PMC5339145          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-5177-5

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


  53 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.  Effects of acetabular rim trimming on hip joint contact pressures: how much is too much?

Authors:  Sanjeev Bhatia; Simon Lee; Elizabeth Shewman; Richard C Mather; Michael J Salata; Charles A Bush-Joseph; Shane J Nho
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  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

7.  The ischial spine sign: does pelvic tilt and rotation matter?

Authors:  Diganta K Kakaty; Andreas F Fischer; Harish S Hosalkar; Klaus A Siebenrock; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  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

9.  Pelvic morphology differs in rotation and obliquity between developmental dysplasia of the hip and retroversion.

Authors:  Moritz Tannast; Peter Pfannebecker; Joseph M Schwab; Christoph E Albers; Klaus A Siebenrock; Lorenz Büchler
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Description and mid-term results of the 'over the top' technique for the treatment of the pincer deformity in femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Victor M Ilizaliturri; Pedro Joachin; Marco Acuna
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2015-08-14
View more
  16 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Does the Rule of Thirds Adequately Detect Deficient and Excessive Acetabular Coverage?

Authors:  Vera M Stetzelberger; Angela M Moosmann; Guoyan Zheng; Joseph M Schwab; Simon D Steppacher; Moritz Tannast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  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

5.  What the papers say.

Authors:  Ajay Malviya
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2017-06-01

6.  The interface between periacetabular osteotomy, hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty in the young adult hip.

Authors:  Stig Storgaard Jakobsen; Søren Overgaard; Kjeld Søballe; Ole Ovesen; Bjarne Mygind-Klavsen; Christian Andreas Dippmann; Michael Ulrich Jensen; Jens Stürup; Jens Retpen
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-07-11

7.  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

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.  Is Hip Arthroscopy an Adequate Therapy for the Borderline Dysplastic Hip? Correlation Between Radiologic Findings and Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Alexander Zimmerer; Marco M Schneider; Rainer Nietschke; Wolfgang Miehlke; Christian Sobau
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-05-20

10.  Analysis of acetabular version: Retroversion prevalence, age, side and gender correlations.

Authors:  Antonio Klasan; Thomas Neri; Charlotte Sommer; Murilo Anderson Leie; Philipp Dworschak; Markus D Schofer; Thomas J Heyse
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 5.191

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.