Keisuke Komiyama1, Satoshi Hamai2,3, Goro Motomura1, Satoshi Ikemura1, Masanori Fujii1, Shinya Kawahara1, Yasuharu Nakashima1. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. hamachan@ortho.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Medical-Engineering Collaboration for Healthy Longevity, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. hamachan@ortho.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy still exist regarding the outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of THA after PAO with primary THA based on balanced baseline characteristics with propensity score matching. METHODS: Using propensity score matching, 1:2 matched cohort to facilitate comparison between patients who underwent primary cementless THA with or without previous PAO. Then, we compared the operative time, blood loss, complications, postoperative clinical score, cup size, position, and alignment of acetabular cup, and degree of bony coverage on cup between the two groups. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with 37 hips who underwent THA after PAO were successfully matched to 70 patients with 74 hips who underwent primary THA. The operative time and blood loss in THA after PAO were significantly longer and larger than those in primary THA (P < 0.001 and = 0.0067, respectively). Clinical score showed no difference between the groups (P > 0.05). For THA after PAO, the cup size and bony coverage were larger (P = 0.0014 and < 0.001, respectively), and the hip center was significantly higher and laterally (P < 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively) comparing primary THA. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated longer operative time and larger blood loss without difference in the postoperative clinical score or complications between THA after PAO and primary THA. Furthermore, THA after PAO provided larger cup size and superolaterally positioned cup center without difference in the cup inclination or anteversion comparing primary THA.
BACKGROUND: Controversy still exist regarding the outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of THA after PAO with primary THA based on balanced baseline characteristics with propensity score matching. METHODS: Using propensity score matching, 1:2 matched cohort to facilitate comparison between patients who underwent primary cementless THA with or without previous PAO. Then, we compared the operative time, blood loss, complications, postoperative clinical score, cup size, position, and alignment of acetabular cup, and degree of bony coverage on cup between the two groups. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with 37 hips who underwent THA after PAO were successfully matched to 70 patients with 74 hips who underwent primary THA. The operative time and blood loss in THA after PAO were significantly longer and larger than those in primary THA (P < 0.001 and = 0.0067, respectively). Clinical score showed no difference between the groups (P > 0.05). For THA after PAO, the cup size and bony coverage were larger (P = 0.0014 and < 0.001, respectively), and the hip center was significantly higher and laterally (P < 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively) comparing primary THA. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated longer operative time and larger blood loss without difference in the postoperative clinical score or complications between THA after PAO and primary THA. Furthermore, THA after PAO provided larger cup size and superolaterally positioned cup center without difference in the cup inclination or anteversion comparing primary THA.
Authors: Issa J Dahabreh; Radley C Sheldrick; Jessica K Paulus; Mei Chung; Vasileia Varvarigou; Haseeb Jafri; Jeremy A Rassen; Thomas A Trikalinos; Georgios D Kitsios Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-06-17 Impact factor: 29.983