Total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy for developmental dysplasia of the hip: a retrospective observational study.
Bone defect
Developmental dysplasia
Hip center
Rotational acetabular osteotomy
Total hip arthroplasty
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jul 2022
06 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
09
03
2022
accepted:
28
06
2022
entrez:
6
7
2022
pubmed:
7
7
2022
medline:
9
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Total hip arthroplasty after osteotomy is more technically challenging than primary total hip arthroplasty, especially concerning cup placement. This is attributed to bone morphological abnormalities caused by acetabular bone loss and osteophyte formation. This study aimed to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy compared with those of primary total hip arthroplasty, focusing mainly on acetabular deformity and cup position. The study included 22 hips that had undergone rotational acetabular osteotomy and 22 hips in an age- and sex-matched control group of patients who underwent total hip arthroplasties between 2005 and 2020. We analyzed cup abduction and anteversion; lateral, anterior, and posterior cup center-edge angle; hip joint center position; femoral anteversion angle; and presence of acetabular defect using postoperative radiography and computed tomography. Operative results and clinical evaluations were also analyzed. The clinical evaluation showed that the postoperative flexion range of motion was lower in total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy than in primary total hip arthroplasty, although no significant difference was noted in the postoperative total Japanese Orthopedic Association hip score. The operative time was significantly longer in the rotational acetabular osteotomy group than in the control group, but there was no significant difference in blood loss. The lateral cup center-edge angle was significantly higher and the posterior cup center-edge angle was significantly lower in the total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy, suggesting a posterior bone defect existed in the acetabulum. In total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy, the hip joint center was located significantly superior and lateral to the primary total hip arthroplasty. In total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy, the cup tended to be placed in the superior and lateral positions, where there was more bone volume. The deformity of the acetabulum and the high hip center should be considered for treatment success because they may cause cup instability, limited range of motion, and impingement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Total hip arthroplasty after osteotomy is more technically challenging than primary total hip arthroplasty, especially concerning cup placement. This is attributed to bone morphological abnormalities caused by acetabular bone loss and osteophyte formation. This study aimed to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy compared with those of primary total hip arthroplasty, focusing mainly on acetabular deformity and cup position.
METHODS
METHODS
The study included 22 hips that had undergone rotational acetabular osteotomy and 22 hips in an age- and sex-matched control group of patients who underwent total hip arthroplasties between 2005 and 2020. We analyzed cup abduction and anteversion; lateral, anterior, and posterior cup center-edge angle; hip joint center position; femoral anteversion angle; and presence of acetabular defect using postoperative radiography and computed tomography. Operative results and clinical evaluations were also analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The clinical evaluation showed that the postoperative flexion range of motion was lower in total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy than in primary total hip arthroplasty, although no significant difference was noted in the postoperative total Japanese Orthopedic Association hip score. The operative time was significantly longer in the rotational acetabular osteotomy group than in the control group, but there was no significant difference in blood loss. The lateral cup center-edge angle was significantly higher and the posterior cup center-edge angle was significantly lower in the total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy, suggesting a posterior bone defect existed in the acetabulum. In total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy, the hip joint center was located significantly superior and lateral to the primary total hip arthroplasty.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In total hip arthroplasty after rotational acetabular osteotomy, the cup tended to be placed in the superior and lateral positions, where there was more bone volume. The deformity of the acetabulum and the high hip center should be considered for treatment success because they may cause cup instability, limited range of motion, and impingement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35794611
doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05597-y
pii: 10.1186/s12891-022-05597-y
pmc: PMC9258082
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
646Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Sep;88(9):1915-9
pubmed: 16951105
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 May 15;18(1):191
pubmed: 28506238
Int Orthop. 2019 Sep;43(9):2057-2063
pubmed: 30251192
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jan;31(1):172-5
pubmed: 26264177
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 May 6;97(9):726-32
pubmed: 25948519
Bone Joint J. 2019 Apr;101-B(4):390-395
pubmed: 30929485
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Apr;29(4):763-8
pubmed: 24035618
J Hip Preserv Surg. 2021 Feb 05;7(4):764-776
pubmed: 34377519
Hip Int. 2021 Dec 10;:11207000211059442
pubmed: 34886688
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Jun;104(4):455-463
pubmed: 29581068
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Oct;35(10):2807-2812
pubmed: 32563590
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Nov 26;22(1):987
pubmed: 34836525
HSS J. 2009 Sep;5(2):137-42
pubmed: 19506965
Clin Orthop Surg. 2018 Sep;10(3):299-306
pubmed: 30174805
Bone Joint J. 2021 Sep;103-B(9):1472-1478
pubmed: 34465155
Skeletal Radiol. 2009 Feb;38(2):131-9
pubmed: 18830593
Hip Int. 2011 May-Jun;21(3):311-6
pubmed: 21698580
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Dec;(261):214-23
pubmed: 2245547
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Oct;474(10):2145-53
pubmed: 27121873
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Aug;476(8):1680-1684
pubmed: 30020152
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Oct 29;15(1):501
pubmed: 33121540
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Feb;24(2):240-5
pubmed: 18835515
Orthopedics. 2012 Mar 07;35(3):e313-8
pubmed: 22385439
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Feb;473(2):685-91
pubmed: 25359629
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Mar;30(3):403-6
pubmed: 25456635
Orthopedics. 2011 Jan 01;34(2):88
pubmed: 21323286
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 May;139(5):729-734
pubmed: 30904985
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Sep;31(9):1904-9
pubmed: 27036922
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015 Aug;25(6):1057-60
pubmed: 26094826
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jun;468(6):1611-20
pubmed: 20309659
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Aug;141(8):1411-1417
pubmed: 33625543
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6):1622-1626
pubmed: 32088057