Zurmühle Corinne A, Anwander Helen, Albers Christoph E, Hanke Markus S, Steppacher Simon D, Siebenrock Klaus A, Tannast Moritz
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Apr;475(4):1138-1150. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-5177-5. Epub 2016 Dec 5.
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.
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.
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.
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 III, therapeutic study.
髋臼后倾可导致撞击型股骨髋臼撞击症,进而引起髋关节疼痛和骨关节炎。可通过髋臼周围截骨术(PAO)前倾或髋臼边缘修整并重新固定盂唇来治疗。越来越多的证据表明,髋臼后倾是整个半骨盆的旋转异常,而非髋臼前壁的局部过度生长,这使得PAO前倾更为可取。然而,与边缘修整相比,在中期随访中,这种较大的手术在生存率和Merle d'Aubigné评分方面是否有益尚不清楚。
问题/目的:我们探讨了对于有症状的髋臼后倾患者,通过手术性髋关节脱位进行PAO前倾与边缘修整相比,是否能提高髋关节的生存率。
我们进行了一项回顾性比较研究,评估两组匹配的有症状髋臼后倾患者的中期生存率,一组接受PAO前倾,另一组通过手术性髋关节脱位进行髋臼边缘修整。髋臼后倾由同时出现的阳性交叉征、后壁征和坐骨棘征定义。1997年至2012年期间,我们中心共有279例髋关节因髋臼后倾接受了手术干预(166例髋臼周围截骨术,113例通过手术性髋关节脱位进行边缘修整)。PAO组共有99例患者(60%)和边缘修整组56例患者(50%)被排除,原因是他们存在几种预先指定的情况中的任何一种(例如,发育异常或儿科情况,PAO组61例[37%],边缘修整组2例[2%])、匹配(10例[6%]/10例[9%]髋关节)、记录不全(10例[6%]/13例[12%]髋关节)或患者拒绝或失访(18例[11%]/31例[27%]髋关节)。这使得67例髋关节(57例患者)接受了PAO前倾,57例髋关节(52例患者)进行了髋臼边缘修整。两组在年龄、性别、体重指数、术前活动度、术前Merle d'Aubigné-Postel评分、髋臼的放射学形态(除了髋臼总覆盖和前覆盖)、α角、骨关节炎的Tönnis分级以及术前MRI上的盂唇和软骨损伤方面无差异。在所述期间,我们一般在1997年至2003年进行PAO。随着手术性髋关节脱位和盂唇重新固定的出现,我们一般在2004年至2010年进行边缘修整。随着对潜在病理形态学认识的增加,PAO前倾在2007年至2008年左右再次变得更为常见。本研究要求最短随访2年。任何时间的失败病例均纳入。PAO前倾组的中位随访时间为9.5年(范围,2 - 17.4年),边缘修整组为6.8年(范围,2.2 - 10.5年)(p < 0.001)。使用以下5年和10年的终点进行Kaplan-Meier生存率分析:全髋关节置换术(THA)、骨关节炎放射学进展一个Tönnis分级和/或Merle d'Aubigné-Postel评分<15分。
尽管根据现有数据两组的5年生存率无差异(PAO前倾为86%[95%置信区间{CI},76% - 94%],髋臼边缘修整为86%[95%CI,76% - 96%]),但我们发现,对于髋臼后倾接受PAO前倾的髋关节,10年时的生存率有所提高(79%[95%CI,68% - 90%]),而髋臼边缘修整组10年时为23%[95%CI,6% - 40%](p < 0.001)。通过手术性髋关节脱位进行髋臼边缘修整组的生存率曲线在第6年开始下降。失败的主要原因是Merle d'Aubigné评分降低。
对于髋臼严重后倾的髋关节,PAO前倾可能是更合适治疗方法。这可能是由于通过边缘修整减少了髋臼后倾髋关节本就较小的月状面。然而,对于髋臼后倾中三个体征中只有一两个为阳性的髋关节,边缘修整可能仍有益处。未来的随机研究应比较这些治疗方法。
III级,治疗性研究。