Search

Background: The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) has entered its fourth decade and is frequently used for corrective osteotomy in patients with acetabular dysplasia. Although our capacity to preserve the joint after corrective osteotomy is excellent, gaining a better understanding on how well patients function after this surgery is important as well. Questions/purposes: (1) What changes in patient-reported outcomes scores occur in patients treated with PAO for hip dysplasia in the setting of a single-surgeon practice? (2) What are the predictors of clinical function and survivorship? Methods: All 67 patients presenting to a single surgeon's clinic with hip dysplasia treated with PAO between October 2005 and January 2013 were prospectively followed. Baseline demographic data as well as pre- and postoperative radiographic and functional measurements were obtained with a minimum of 1-year followup. Radiographic criteria included Tönnis grade, Tönnis angle, minimum joint space width, center-edge angle, presence of crossover sign, medial translation of the hip center, and alpha angle. We also used validated outcome measures including the WOMAC, the UCLA Activity Scale, and the SF-12. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine predictors of functional outcome scores. Results: There were increases in WOMAC, UCLA, and SF-12 Physical scores. Higher preoperative alpha angle was associated with a lower postoperative WOMAC score (β = −0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.92 to −0.02; R = 0.08; p = 0.04). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 94.1% (95% CI, 90.7-97.5) with reoperation (ie, hip arthroscopy and/or total hip arthroplasty) used as the endpoint for failure. With the limited numbers available, we could not identify any demographic or radiographic factors associated with reoperation. Conclusions: Overall survivorship for the PAO at our center at 5 years is comparable to other clinical series with overall functional scores improving. A greater alpha angle preoperatively was associated with poorer patient-reported outcome scores. Further research is needed to determine how and when intraarticular cartilage damage associated with dysplasia needs to be addressed. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Substantial acetabular cartilage damage is commonly present in patients suffering from femoral acetabular impingement (FAI). A better understanding of which patient is at risk of developing substantial cartilage damage is critical for establishing appropriate treatment guidelines. Questions/Purposes: We asked: (1) Does the cam deformity severity in FAI as assessed by alpha angle predict acetabular cartilage delamination? And (2) what are the clinical and radiographic findings in patients with acetabular cartilage delamination? Methods: One hundred sixty-seven patients (129 males, 38 females) with a mean age of 38 years (range, 17-59 years) underwent joint preservation surgery for cam-type FAI. All data were collected prospectively. We assessed center-edge angle and Tönnis grade on AP radiographs and alpha angle on specialized lateral radiographs. Acetabular cartilage damage was assessed intraoperatively using the classification of Beck et al., with Type 3 and greater qualifying as delamination. Results: For all hips, mean alpha angle was 65.5° (range, 41°-90°), and mean center-edge angle was 33.3° (range, 21°-52.5°). Patients with an alpha angle of 65° or greater had an odds ratio (OR) of 4.00 (95% CI, 1.26-12.71) of having Type 3 or greater damage. Increased age (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07) and male sex (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.09-4.62) were associated with Type 3 or greater damage, while this was the opposite for acetabular coverage as assessed by center-edge angle (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99). Conclusions: Patients with cam-type FAI and an alpha angle of 65° or more are at increased risk of substantial cartilage damage while increasing acetabular coverage appears to have a protective effect. Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]