| Literature DB >> 34746325 |
Soshi Uchida1, Yoichi Murata1, Manabu Tsukamoto2, Hajime Utsunomiya1, Yoshiaki Yamanaka2, Akihisa Hatakeyama1, Shiho Kanezaki1, Akinori Sakai2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of clinical outcomes and return to artistic activities after endoscopic shelf acetabuloplasty (ESA) for acetabular dysplasia in artistic athletes is lacking. HYPOTHESIS: Hip arthroscopic surgery including ESA will enable artistic athletes to return to their activities with a high success rate, significantly improved acetabular coverage, and preserved joint cartilage. STUDYEntities:
Keywords: acetabular dysplasia; artistic dancers; capsular plication; endoscopic shelf acetabuloplasty; hip arthroscopy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34746325 PMCID: PMC8564133 DOI: 10.1177/23259671211049222
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop J Sports Med ISSN: 2325-9671
Figure 1.Flowchart showing the recruitment of patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip undergoing endoscopic shelf acetabuloplasty (ESA) in this study.
Figure 2.Preoperative diagnostic images from an 18-year-old female ballet dancer who presented with right hip pain for 14 months. (A) A pelvic anteroposterior radiograph showed a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of 16°, a Tönnis angle of 14°, and a Sharp angle of 48°. (B) A false-profile radiograph showed a vertical-center-anterior angle of 14°. (C) A modified Dunn radiograph showed an alpha angle of 62°, suggesting a cam lesion. (D) A 3-dimensional computed tomography scan showed a shortage of coverage of the lateral acetabulum and the protruding anterior inferior iliac spine. (E) A T2*-weighted coronal magnetic resonance image showed an acetabular labral tear (arrow).
Characteristics of the Included Artistic Athletes (N = 23 patients; 28 hips)
| Age, y | 25.8 ± 10.2 (14-47) |
|---|---|
| Female sex, n (%) | 23 (100) |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 20.6 ± 2.0 (17.1-25.1) |
| Sport, n (%) | |
| Classical ballet | 14 (50) |
| Rhythmic gymnastics | 9 (32) |
| Dance | 4 (14) |
| Baton twirling | 1 (4) |
| Level of sport, n | |
| Recreational | 8 |
| Competitive | 10 |
| Professional | 5 |
| Beighton score, n (%) | |
| 0-3 | 0 (0) |
| 4 | 1 (4) |
| 5 | 5 (18) |
| 6 | 8 (29) |
| 7 | 3 (11) |
| 8 | 0 (0) |
| 9 | 11 (39) |
| Side affected, right, n (%) | 13 (46) |
Age and body mass index are expressed as mean ± SD (range).
Figure 3.Preoperative planning. LCEA, lateral center-edge angle.
Figure 4.Surgical findings of endoscopic shelf acetabuloplasty. (A) Supine arthroscopic view from the anterolateral portal showing an anterior superior labral tear and suture anchors placed at the acetabulum. (B) The protruding anterior inferior iliac spine was decompressed. (C and D) Labral repair with a suture anchor. (E and F) Arthroscopic view from the midanterior portal showing cam osteoplasty. (G and H) Shoelace capsular closure using Ultratape. (I) A free bone graft harvested from the ipsilateral iliac crest with 2 parallel 1.5-mm Kirschner wires. (J) Four 2.4-mm guide wires were introduced into the planned location of the shelf through the midanterior portal. (K) A cannulated drill was used via the guide wires to make a shelf slot. (L) A free bone autograft was inserted into the slot through the guidewires with press-fit fixation. (M) Anterior view and (N) lateral view on 3-dimensional computed tomography showing the location of the shelf graft.
Preoperative Radiographic Assessments
| Mean ± SD (95% CI) | Median [IQR] | n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lateral center-edge angle, deg | 15.7 ± 5.3 (13.6-17.8) | 16.5 [12.5-19.5] | |
| ≤20° | 23 (82) | ||
| ≤10° | 5 (18) | ||
| Sharp angle, deg | 46.5 ± 5.3 (44.4-48.6) | 48.0 [45.5-49.0] | |
| Tönnis angle, deg | 15.2 ± 3.9 (13.7-16.7) | 14.0 [12.5-18.5] | |
| ≥15° | 18 (64) | ||
| Vertical-center-anterior angle, deg | 16.8 ± 9.0 (13.3-20.3) | 18.0 [9.0-24.0] | |
| ≤17° | 13 (46) | ||
| Alpha angle, deg | 63.7 ± 11.3 (59.3-68.1) | 65.0 [58.5-70.5] | |
| ≥55.0° | 22 (79) | ||
| Femoral neck-shaft angle, deg | 135.0 ± 4.3 (133.3-136.7) | 133.5 [132.0-138.0] | |
| Broken Shenton line | 5 (18) | ||
| Anterior inferior iliac spine type 1/2/3 | 2/23/3 | ||
| Acetabular anteversion, deg | 18.2 ± 5.5 (16.0-20.4) | 18.0 [13.0-21.5] | |
| Femoral neck anteversion deg | 21.9 ± 12.1 (17.1-26.7) | 24.8 [11.0-30.8] |
Reported as number of hips.
Arthroscopic Findings and Procedures
| n (%) | |
|---|---|
| Labral tear | 28 (100) |
| Cartilage damage | |
| Acetabulum (MAHORN classification) | |
| Grade 1 | 4 (14) |
| Grade 2 | 17 (61) |
| Grade 3 | 6 (21) |
| Grade 4 | 1 (4) |
| Grade 5 | 0 (0) |
| Femoral head (ICRS classification) | |
| Grade 0 | 18 (64) |
| Grade 1 | 1 (4) |
| Grade 2 | 6 (21) |
| Grade 3 | 2 (7) |
| Grade 4 | 1 (4) |
| Labral repair | 28 (100) |
| Femoral osteoplasty | 28 (100) |
| Capsular management | |
| Side-to-side repair | 14 (50) |
| Single-shoelace capsular plication | 12 (43) |
| Double-shoelace capsular plication | 2 (7) |
| Cartilage management | |
| Microfracture | 3 |
| Management for rim stress fracture | |
| Fragment fixation | 2 |
| Bone graft for large bone cyst | 1 |
| Endoscopic shelf acetabuloplasty | 28 (100) |
ICRS, International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society; MAHORN, Multicenter Arthroscopy Hip Outcome Research Network.
Patient-Reported Outcome Scores From Preoperative Assessment to Final Follow-up
| Preoperative | Final Follow-up |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| mHHS | 68.5 ± 18.1 (36.3-96.8) | 88.3 ± 18.5 (22-100) |
|
| NAHS | 50.8 ± 17.7 (17-71) | 69.0 ± 11.4 (46-80) |
|
| iHOT-12 | 36.9 ± 19.3 (15-69.1) | 75.2 ± 19.8 (12.5-99.1) |
|
| VHS | 53.8 ± 13.7 (26-76) | 79.4 ± 19.4 (12-100) |
|
| HOS–Sport | 59.9 ± 17.0 (27.7-91.6) | 79.6 ± 21.3 (11.1-100) |
|
Data are shown as mean ± SD (range). Bolded P values indicate statistically significant difference between preoperative assessment and final follow-up (P ≤ .05; paired t test). HOS, Hip Outcome Score; iHOT, International Hip Outcome Tool; mHHS, modified Harris Hip score; NAHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score; VHS, Vail Hip Score.
Changes in Range of Motion From Preoperative Assessment to Final Follow-up
| Preoperative | Final Follow-up | 95% CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexion | 100.9 ± 11.2 | 120.4 ± 7.3 | –25.0 to 13.9 |
|
| Abduction | 43.4 ± 9.1 | 50.5 ± 6.1 | –11.8 to –2.5 |
|
| Internal rotation | 45.2 ± 14.4 | 50.4 ± 8.0 | –11.2 to 0.84 | .089 |
| External rotation | 40.2 ± 10.8 | 47.4 ± 7.9 | –12.6 to –2.1 |
|
Data are shown in degrees as mean ± SD.
Bolded P values indicate statistically significant difference between preoperative assessment and final follow-up (P ≤ .05).
Radiographic Changes From Preoperative Assessment to Final Follow-up
| Preoperative | Postoperative | Final Follow-up |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lateral center-edge angle, deg | 15.7 ± 5.3 | 39.8 ± 8.2 | 33.7 ± 8.6 |
|
| Tönnis angle, deg | 15.5 ± 4.0 | 9.7 ± 5.3 | 12.8 ± 5.0 |
|
| Vertical-center-anterior angle, deg | 16.2 ± 8.8 | 36.4 ± 9.5 | 33.6 ± 8.0 |
|
| Tönnis grade, n (%) | .408 | |||
| Grade 0 | 19 | 16 | ||
| Grade 1 | 9 | 12 | ||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Grade 3 | 0 | 0 |
Data are shown as mean ± SD unless otherwise noted. Bolded P values indicate statistically significant difference among the 3 time periods (P ≤ .05).
The mean radiographic parameters among the 3 periods were tested by the Friedman test. The Tönnis grade was compared by chi-square test.
Figure 5.Pelvic anteroposterior (top) and false-profile (bottom) radiographs of a single patient over time. (A) Preoperative radiographs show a shallow acetabulum with a vertical-center-anterior (VCA) angle of 14° and lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of 16°. (B) Immediately after surgery. (C) Radiographs 18 months postoperatively show a VCA angle of 30° and an LCEA of 35°.