Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Jan 1;480(1):67-78. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001893.
Inappropriate sagittal plane correction can result in an increased risk of osteoarthritis progression after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Individual and postural variations in sagittal pelvic tilt, along with acetabular deformity, affect joint contact mechanics in dysplastic hips and may impact the direction and degree of acetabular correction. Finite-element analyses that account for physiologic pelvic tilt may provide valuable insight into the effect of PAO on the contact mechanics of dysplastic hips, which may lead to improved acetabular correction during PAO.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed virtual PAO using finite-element models with reference to the standing pelvic position to clarify (1) whether lateral rotation of the acetabulum normalizes the joint contact pressure, (2) risk factors for abnormal contact pressure after lateral rotation of the acetabulum, and (3) whether additional anterior rotation of the acetabulum further reduces contact pressure.
Between 2016 and 2020, 85 patients (92 hips) underwent PAO to treat hip dysplasia. Eighty-two patients with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle < 20°) were included. Patients with advanced osteoarthritis, femoral head deformity, prior hip or spine surgery, or poor-quality images were excluded. Thirty-eight patients (38 hips) were eligible to participate in this study. All patients were women, with a mean age of 39 ± 10 years. Thirty-three women volunteers without a history of hip disease were reviewed as control participants. Individuals with a lateral center-edge angle < 25° or poor-quality images were excluded. Sixteen individuals (16 hips) with a mean age of 36 ± 7 years were eligible as controls. Using CT images, we developed patient-specific three-dimensional surface hip models with the standing pelvic position as a reference. The loading scenario was based on single-leg stance. Four patterns of virtual PAO were performed in the models. First, the acetabular fragment was rotated laterally in the coronal plane so that the lateral center-edge angle was 30°; then, anterior rotation in the sagittal plane was added by 0°, 5°, 10°, and 15°. We developed finite-element models for each acetabular position and performed a nonlinear contact analysis to calculate the joint contact pressure of the acetabular cartilage. The normal range of the maximum joint contact pressure was calculated to be < 4.1 MPa using a receiver operating characteristic curve. A paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferroni correction was used to compare joint contact pressures among acetabular positions. We evaluated the association of joint contact pressure with the patient-specific sagittal pelvic tilt and acetabular version and coverage using Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients. An exploratory univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify which of the preoperative factors (CT measurement parameters and sagittal pelvic tilt) were associated with abnormal contact pressure after lateral rotation of the acetabulum. Variables with p values < 0.05 (anterior center-edge angle and sagittal pelvic tilt) were included in a multivariable model to identify the independent influence of each factor.
Lateral rotation of the acetabulum decreased the median maximum contact pressure compared with that before virtual PAO (3.7 MPa [range 2.2-6.7] versus 7.2 MPa [range 4.1-14 MPa], difference of medians 3.5 MPa; p < 0.001). The resulting maximum contact pressures were within the normal range (< 4.1 MPa) in 63% of the hips (24 of 38 hips). The maximum contact pressure after lateral acetabular rotation was negatively correlated with the standing pelvic tilt (anterior pelvic plane angle) (ρ = -0.52; p < 0.001) and anterior center-edge angle (ρ = -0.47; p = 0.003). After controlling for confounding variables such as the lateral center-edge angle and sagittal pelvic tilt, we found that a decreased preoperative anterior center-edge angle (per 1°; odds ratio 1.14 [95% CI 1.01-1.28]; p = 0.01) was independently associated with elevated contact pressure (≥ 4.1 MPa) after lateral rotation; a preoperative anterior center-edge angle < 32° in the standing pelvic position was associated with elevated contact pressure (sensitivity 57%, specificity 96%, area under the curve 0.77). Additional anterior rotation further decreased the joint contact pressure; the maximum contact pressures were within the normal range in 74% (28 of 38 hips), 76% (29 of 38 hips), and 84% (32 of 38 hips) of the hips when the acetabulum was rotated anteriorly by 5°, 10°, and 15°, respectively.
Via virtual PAO, normal joint contact pressure was achieved in 63% of patients by normalizing the lateral acetabular coverage. However, lateral acetabular rotation was insufficient to normalize the joint contact pressure in patients with more posteriorly tilted pelvises and anterior acetabular deficiency. In patients with a preoperative anterior center-edge angle < 32° in the standing pelvic position, additional anterior rotation is expected to be a useful guide to normalize the joint contact pressure.
This virtual PAO study suggests that biomechanics-based planning for PAO should incorporate not only the morphology of the hip but also the physiologic pelvic tilt in the weightbearing position in order to customize acetabular reorientation for each patient.
髋臼骨截骨术(PAO)后矢状面矫正不当可导致髋关节骨关节炎进展的风险增加。骨盆倾斜的个体和姿势变化,以及髋臼畸形,会影响髋臼发育不良髋关节的关节接触力学,并可能影响髋臼矫正的方向和程度。考虑到生理骨盆倾斜的有限元分析可能为 PAO 对髋臼发育不良髋关节接触力学的影响提供有价值的见解,这可能导致 PAO 期间髋臼矫正的改善。
问题/目的:我们使用参考站立骨盆位置的有限元模型进行虚拟 PAO,以明确(1)髋臼的外侧旋转是否使关节接触压力正常化,(2)髋臼外侧旋转后异常接触压力的危险因素,以及(3)髋臼的进一步前旋是否进一步降低接触压力。
2016 年至 2020 年,85 例(92 髋)患者接受 PAO 治疗髋关节发育不良。纳入 82 例髋关节发育不良(外侧中心边缘角<20°)患者。排除髋关节晚期骨关节炎、股骨头畸形、既往髋关节或脊柱手术或图像质量差的患者。38 例(38 髋)患者符合本研究条件。所有患者均为女性,平均年龄 39±10 岁。33 名无髋关节疾病史的女性志愿者作为对照参与者进行了回顾。排除外侧中心边缘角<25°或图像质量差的个体。16 名(16 髋)平均年龄 36±7 岁的女性符合条件作为对照组。使用 CT 图像,我们以站立骨盆位置为参考,开发了患者特定的三维表面髋关节模型。加载方案基于单腿站立。在模型中进行了四种模式的虚拟 PAO。首先,髋臼骨块在冠状面外侧旋转,使外侧中心边缘角为 30°;然后,在前矢状面加入 0°、5°、10°和 15°的前旋转。我们为每个髋臼位置开发了有限元模型,并进行了非线性接触分析,以计算髋臼软骨的关节接触压力。使用接收者操作特征曲线计算最大关节接触压力的正常范围<4.1MPa。使用配对 t 检验或 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验(Bonferroni 校正)比较髋臼位置之间的关节接触压力。我们使用 Pearson 或 Spearman 相关系数评估关节接触压力与患者特定矢状面骨盆倾斜和髋臼版本和覆盖之间的相关性。使用单变量逻辑回归分析探索性地识别髋臼外侧旋转后异常接触压力与术前因素(CT 测量参数和矢状面骨盆倾斜)之间的关系。p 值<0.05(前中心边缘角和矢状面骨盆倾斜)的变量被纳入多变量模型,以确定每个因素的独立影响。
髋臼外侧旋转降低了与虚拟 PAO 前相比的中位最大接触压力(3.7MPa[范围 2.2-6.7] 与 7.2MPa[范围 4.1-14MPa],中位数差异 3.5MPa;p<0.001)。结果最大接触压力在 63%(24/38 髋)的髋部处于正常范围内(<4.1MPa)。髋臼外侧旋转后的最大接触压力与站立骨盆倾斜(前骨盆平面角)(ρ=-0.52;p<0.001)和前中心边缘角(ρ=-0.47;p=0.003)呈负相关。在校正了诸如外侧中心边缘角和矢状面骨盆倾斜等混杂变量后,我们发现术前前中心边缘角减小(每 1°;优势比 1.14[95%CI 1.01-1.28];p=0.01)与髋臼外侧旋转后接触压力升高(≥4.1MPa)独立相关;站立骨盆位置的前中心边缘角<32°与接触压力升高相关(敏感性 57%,特异性 96%,曲线下面积 0.77)。进一步的前旋进一步降低了关节接触压力;当髋臼分别向前旋转 5°、10°和 15°时,最大接触压力分别在 74%(28/38 髋)、76%(29/38 髋)和 84%(32/38 髋)的髋部处于正常范围内。
通过虚拟 PAO,通过正常化髋臼外侧覆盖,63%的患者实现了正常的关节接触压力。然而,对于骨盆后倾和髋臼前侧不足的患者,髋臼外侧旋转不足以使关节接触压力正常化。在站立骨盆位置前中心边缘角<32°的患者中,额外的前旋转有望成为使关节接触压力正常化的有用指导。
这项虚拟 PAO 研究表明,PAO 的基于生物力学的规划应将髋关节的形态与负重位的生理骨盆倾斜相结合,以便为每位患者定制髋臼再定位。