Martz Pierre, Magendie Jerome, Ramos-Pascual Sonia, Kumble Ankitha, Boutaud Benoît, Verdier Nicolas
CHU Hôpital François Mitterrand, Dijon, France.
INSERM, U1093, CAPS, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France.
EFORT Open Rev. 2024 Dec 2;9(12):1144-1155. doi: 10.1530/EOR-23-0152.
To identify, synthesise, and critically appraise findings of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on hip preservation surgeries for borderline and/or frank dysplasia with or without concomitant femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).
A search, following the PRISMA guidelines, was conducted using Medline and Embase on 19/04/2023. Findings extracted from eligible studies were tabulated and synthesised.
The search identified 477 references. Nineteen were eligible for data extraction: nine reported on arthroscopy, five reported on periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), one reported on shelf acetabuloplasty, and one reported on Chiari osteotomy, while two compared arthroscopy versus PAO, and one compared PAO versus rotational acetabular osteotomy (RAO) versus eccentric acetabular osteotomy (ERAO). The nomenclature and lateral centre edge angle (LCEA) thresholds to define hip dysplasia varied widely across included studies. All hip preservation surgeries provided good outcomes, with the Harris hip score (HHS) being the most commonly reported clinical score. Using the AMSTAR checklist for risk of bias, no systematic reviews were rated as high quality; ten were rated as moderate quality; six were rated as low quality; and three were rated as critically low quality.
Most published systematic reviews on hip preservation surgery are of moderate or low quality, and there is high heterogeneity among them regarding outcomes reported, follow-up periods, and definitions of dysplasia. The authors recommend the following thresholds and nomenclature for dysplasia: LCEA < 20° for frank dysplasia, 20°-25° for borderline dysplasia, and >25° for no dysplasia. Although all hip preservation surgeries can provide good outcomes, it is challenging to conclude which surgery provides the best outcomes and to determine if treatment options are dependent on LCEA.
识别、综合并批判性评价关于边缘性和/或明显发育不良伴或不伴股骨髋臼撞击症(FAI)的髋关节保留手术的系统评价和/或荟萃分析的结果。
按照PRISMA指南,于2023年4月19日使用Medline和Embase进行检索。从符合条件的研究中提取的结果进行列表和综合。
检索到477篇参考文献。19篇符合数据提取条件:9篇报告了关节镜检查,5篇报告了髋臼周围截骨术(PAO),1篇报告了髋臼加盖成形术,1篇报告了Chiari截骨术,2篇比较了关节镜检查与PAO,1篇比较了PAO与旋转髋臼截骨术(RAO)与偏心髋臼截骨术(ERAO)。纳入研究中定义髋关节发育不良的命名法和外侧中心边缘角(LCEA)阈值差异很大。所有髋关节保留手术均取得了良好的效果,Harris髋关节评分(HHS)是最常报告的临床评分。使用AMSTAR偏倚风险清单,没有系统评价被评为高质量;10篇被评为中等质量;6篇被评为低质量;3篇被评为极低质量。
大多数已发表的关于髋关节保留手术的系统评价质量为中等或低等,并且在报告的结果、随访期和发育不良的定义方面存在高度异质性。作者建议采用以下发育不良的阈值和命名法:明显发育不良的LCEA<20°,边缘性发育不良的LCEA为20°-25°,无发育不良的LCEA>25°。尽管所有髋关节保留手术都能提供良好的效果,但要确定哪种手术能提供最佳效果以及治疗方案是否取决于LCEA具有挑战性。