Leopold Vincent Justus, Hipfl Christian, Zahn Robert Karl, Pumberger Matthias, Perka Carsten, Hardt Sebastian
Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2023 Sep 26;12(19):6204. doi: 10.3390/jcm12196204.
The optimal fixation technique in periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) remains controversial. Modified fixation with Kirschner wires (K-wires) was described as a feasible and safe alternative. However, clinical follow-up of patients treated with this technique is lacking.
To assess patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) in patients treated with PAO with the K-wire fixation technique and to compare it with the screw fixation technique.
We conducted an analysis of 202 consecutive PAOs at a single university center between January 2015 and June 2017. A total of 120 cases with complete datasets were included in the final analysis. PAOs with K-wire fixation ( = 63) were compared with screw fixation ( = 57). Mean follow-up was 63 ± 10 months. PROMs assessed included the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT 12), Subjective Hip Value (SHV), and UCLA activity score (UCLA). Pain and patient satisfaction (NRS) were evaluated. Joint preservation was defined as non-conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Preoperative baseline PROMs in both fixation groups were similar. In both groups, PROMs ( = <0.001) and pain ( = <0.001) improved significantly. Postoperative functional outcome was similar in both groups: iHOT 12 (71.8 ± 25.1 vs. 73 ± 21.1; = 0.789), SHV (77.9 ± 21.2 vs. 82.4 ± 13.1; = 0.192), UCLA (6.9 ± 1.6 vs. 6.9 ± 1.9; = 0.909), and pain (2.4 ± 2.1 vs. 2.0 ± 2.1; = 0.302). Patient satisfaction did not differ significantly (7.6 ± 2.6 vs. 8.2 ± 2.2; = 0.170). Conversion to THA was low in both groups (two vs. none; = 0.497).
Periacetabular osteotomy with K-wire fixation provided good clinical results at mid-term follow-up, comparable to those of screw fixation. The technique can therefore be considered a viable option when deciding on the fixation technique in PAO.
髋臼周围截骨术(PAO)的最佳固定技术仍存在争议。改良克氏针(K 针)固定被描述为一种可行且安全的替代方法。然而,缺乏对采用该技术治疗患者的临床随访。
评估采用 K 针固定技术进行 PAO 治疗患者的患者报告结局(PROMs),并与螺钉固定技术进行比较。
我们对 2015 年 1 月至 2017 年 6 月在单一大学中心进行的 202 例连续 PAO 手术进行了分析。最终分析纳入了 120 例具有完整数据集的病例。将 K 针固定的 PAO(n = 63)与螺钉固定的 PAO(n = 57)进行比较。平均随访时间为 63 ± 10 个月。评估的 PROMs 包括国际髋关节结局工具(iHOT 12)、主观髋关节评分(SHV)和加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)活动评分。评估了疼痛和患者满意度(数字评定量表)。关节保留定义为未转换为全髋关节置换术(THA)。
两个固定组术前的基线 PROMs 相似。两组中,PROMs(P < 0.001)和疼痛(P < 0.001)均显著改善。两组术后功能结局相似:iHOT 12(71.8 ± 25.1 对 73 ± 21.1;P = 0.789)、SHV(77.9 ± 21.2 对 82.4 ± 13.1;P = 0.192)、UCLA(6.9 ± 1.6 对 6.9 ± 1.9;P = 0.909)以及疼痛(2.4 ± 2.1 对 2.0 ± 2.1;P = 0.302)。患者满意度无显著差异(7.6 ± 2.6 对 8.2 ± 2.2;P = 0.170)。两组转换为 THA 的比例均较低(2 例对 0 例;P = 0.497)。
中期随访时,K 针固定的髋臼周围截骨术取得了良好的临床效果,与螺钉固定相当。因此,在决定 PAO 的固定技术时,该技术可被视为一种可行的选择。