在接受髋臼周围截骨术的髋臼发育不良患者中,显著的髂前下棘形态很常见。
Prominent Anterior Inferior Iliac Spine Morphologies Are Common in Patients with Acetabular Dysplasia Undergoing Periacetabular Osteotomy.
作者信息
Nestorovski Douglas, Wasko Marcin, Fowler Lucas M, Harris Michael D, Clohisy John C, Nepple Jeffrey J
机构信息
D. Nestorovski, L. M. Fowler, J. C. Clohisy, J. J. Nepple, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
M. Wasko, Department of Radiology and Imaging, The Medical Center for Postgraduate Education in Warsaw, Otwock, Poland.
出版信息
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 May 1;479(5):991-999. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001547.
BACKGROUND
The anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) prominence is increasingly recognized in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The AIIS prominence may contribute to decreased hip flexion after acetabular reorientation in patients with acetabular dysplasia. AIIS morphologies have been characterized in numerous populations including asymptomatic, FAI, and athletic populations, but the morphology of the AIIS in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia undergoing periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) has not been studied. In acetabular dysplasia, deficiency of the anterosuperior acetabular rim is commonly present and may result in the AIIS being positioned closer to the acetabular rim. Understanding morphological variation of the AIIS in patients with symptomatic dysplasia, and its relationship to dysplasia subtype and severity may aid preoperative planning, surgical technique, and evaluation of postoperative issues after PAO.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought to determine: (1) the variability of AIIS morphology types in hips with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia and (2) whether the differences in the proportion of AIIS morphologies are present between dysplasia pattern and severity subtypes.
METHODS
Using our hip preservation database, we identified 153 hips (148 patients) who underwent PAO from October 2013 to July 2015. Inclusion criteria for the current study were (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] < 20°), Tönnis Grade of 0 or 1 on plain AP radiographs of the pelvis, preoperative low-dose CT scan, and no prior surgery, trauma, neuromuscular, ischemic necrosis, or Perthes-like deformity. A total of 50 patients (50 hips) with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia undergoing evaluation for surgical planning of PAO remained for retrospective evaluation; we used these patients' low-dose CT scans for analysis. The median (range) age of patients in the study was 24 years (13 to 49). Ninety percent (45 of 50) of the hips were in female patients, whereas 10% (5 of 50) were in male patients. The morphology of the AIIS was classified on three-dimensional CT reconstructions according to a previously published classification to define the relationship between the AIIS and the acetabular rim. The morphology of the AIIS was classified as Type I (AIIS well proximal to acetabular rim), Type II (AIIS extending to level of acetabular rim), or Type III (AIIS extending distal to acetabular rim). Acetabular dysplasia subtype was characterized according to a prior protocol as either predominantly an anterosuperior acetabular deficiency, a posterosuperior acetabular deficiency, or a global acetabular deficiency. Acetabular dysplasia severity was distinguished as mild (LCEA 15° to 20°) or moderate/severe (LCEA < 15°). To answer our first question, regarding the proportions of each AIIS morphology in the dysplasia population, we calculated proportions and 95% CI estimates. To answer our second question, regarding the proposition of AIIS type between subtypes of dysplasia type and severity, we used a chi-square test or Fisher's exact test to compare categorical variables. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
Seventy-two percent (36 of 50; 95% CI 58% to 83%) of patients had a Type II or III AIIS morphology. Type I AIIS morphology was found in 28% of patients (14 of 50; 95% CI 18% to 42%), Type II AIIS morphology in 62% (31 of 50; 95% CI 48% to 74%), and Type III AIIS/morphology in 10% (5 of 50; 95% CI 4% to 21%). A Type I AIIS was seen in seven of 15 of patients with anterosuperior acetabular deficiency, three of 18 of patients with global deficiency, and four of 17 patients with posterosuperior deficiency (p = 0.08). There was no difference in the variability of AIIS morphologies between the different subtypes of acetabular dysplasia pattern and no difference in AIIS morphology variability between patients with mild versus moderate/severe dysplasia.
CONCLUSIONS
The morphology of the AIIS in patients with acetabular dysplasia is commonly prominent, with 72% of hips having Type II or Type III morphologies.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The AIIS is often prominent in patients with acetabular dysplasia undergoing PAO, regardless of dysplasia pattern or severity. Prominent AIIS morphologies may affect hip flexion ROM after acetabular reorientation. AIIS morphology is a variable that should be considered during preoperative planning for PAO. Future studies are needed to assess the clinical significance of a prominent AIIS on intraoperative findings and postoperative status after PAO.
背景
在股骨髋臼撞击症(FAI)的情况下,髂前下棘(AIIS)突出越来越受到关注。髋臼发育不良患者在髋臼重新定向后,AIIS突出可能导致髋关节屈曲减少。AIIS形态已在众多人群中得到描述,包括无症状人群、FAI患者和运动员群体,但对于接受髋臼周围截骨术(PAO)的有症状髋臼发育不良患者的AIIS形态尚未进行研究。在髋臼发育不良中,髋臼前上缘通常存在缺损,这可能导致AIIS更靠近髋臼边缘。了解有症状发育不良患者AIIS的形态变异及其与发育不良亚型和严重程度之间的关系,可能有助于PAO术前规划、手术技术以及术后问题的评估。
问题/目的:在本研究中,我们试图确定:(1)有症状髋臼发育不良患者髋关节中AIIS形态类型的变异性;(2)发育不良模式和严重程度亚型之间AIIS形态比例是否存在差异。
方法
利用我们的髋关节保留数据库,我们确定了2013年10月至2015年7月期间接受PAO的153例髋关节(148例患者)。本研究的纳入标准为(外侧中心边缘角[LCEA]<20°)、骨盆前后位平片上Tönnis分级为0或1级、术前低剂量CT扫描,且无既往手术、创伤、神经肌肉疾病、缺血性坏死或佩特兹样畸形。共有50例有症状髋臼发育不良且正在接受PAO手术规划评估的患者(50例髋关节)留作回顾性评估;我们使用这些患者的低剂量CT扫描进行分析。研究中患者的年龄中位数(范围)为24岁(13至49岁)。90%(50例中的45例)的髋关节为女性患者,而10%(50例中的5例)为男性患者。根据先前发表的分类方法,在三维CT重建上对AIIS的形态进行分类,以确定AIIS与髋臼边缘之间的关系。AIIS形态分为I型(AIIS远高于髋臼边缘)、II型(AIIS延伸至髋臼边缘水平)或III型(AIIS延伸至髋臼边缘下方)。髋臼发育不良亚型根据先前的方案分为主要为髋臼前上缘缺损、髋臼后上缘缺损或全髋臼缺损。髋臼发育不良的严重程度分为轻度(LCEA 15°至20°)或中度/重度(LCEA<l5°)。为了回答我们的第一个问题,即发育不良人群中每种AIIS形态的比例,我们计算了比例和95%CI估计值。为了回答我们的第二个问题,即发育不良类型和严重程度亚型之间AIIS类型的差异,我们使用卡方检验或费舍尔精确检验来比较分类变量。p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
结果
72%(50例中的36例;95%CI 58%至83%)的患者具有II型或III型AIIS形态。28%的患者(50例中的14例;95%CI 18%至42%)发现I型AIIS形态,62%(50例中的31例;95%CI 48%至74%)为II型AIIS形态,10%(50例中的5例;95%CI 4%至ZI%)为III型AIIS形态。在15例髋臼前上缘缺损患者中有7例出现I型AIIS,18例全髋臼缺损患者中有3例,17例髋臼后上缘缺损患者中有4例(p = 0.08)。髋臼发育不良模式的不同亚型之间AIIS形态的变异性没有差异,轻度与中度/重度发育不良患者之间AIIS形态变异性也没有差异。
结论
髋臼发育不良患者的AIIS形态通常较为突出,72%的髋关节具有II型或III型形态。
临床意义
接受PAO治疗的髋臼发育不良患者中,无论发育不良模式或严重程度如何,AIIS通常较为突出。突出的AIIS形态可能会影响髋臼重新定向后的髋关节屈曲活动度。AIIS形态是PAO术前规划时应考虑的一个变量。未来需要进行研究,以评估突出的AIIS对PAO术中发现和术后状况的临床意义。