Influence of acetabular and femoral morphology on pelvic tilt.

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Alexander F Heimann, Valérie Murmann, Joseph M Schwab, Moritz Tannast
{"title":"Influence of acetabular and femoral morphology on pelvic tilt.","authors":"Alexander F Heimann, Valérie Murmann, Joseph M Schwab, Moritz Tannast","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.106B5.BJJ-2023-0690.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate whether anterior pelvic plane-pelvic tilt (APP-PT) is associated with distinct hip pathomorphologies. We asked: is there a difference in APP-PT between young symptomatic patients being evaluated for joint preservation surgery and an asymptomatic control group? Does APP-PT vary among distinct acetabular and femoral pathomorphologies? And does APP-PT differ in symptomatic hips based on demographic factors?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an institutional review board-approved, single-centre, retrospective, case-control, comparative study, which included 388 symptomatic hips in 357 patients who presented to our tertiary centre for joint preservation between January 2011 and December 2015. Their mean age was 26 years (SD 2; 23 to 29) and 50% were female. They were allocated to 12 different morphological subgroups. The study group was compared with a control group of 20 asymptomatic hips in 20 patients. APP-PT was assessed in all patients based on supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using validated HipRecon software. Values in the two groups were compared using an independent-samples <i>t</i>-test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the influences of diagnoses and demographic factors on APP-PT. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for APP-PT was defined as > 1 SD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in APP-PT between the control group and the overall group (1.1° (SD 3.0°; -4.9° to 5.9°) vs 1.8° (SD 3.4°; -6.9° to 13.2°); p = 0.323). Acetabular retroversion and overcoverage groups showed higher mean APP-PTs compared with the control group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014) and were the only diagnoses with a significant influence on APP-PT in the stepwise multiple regression analysis. All differences were below the MCID. The age, sex, height, weight, and BMI showed no influence on APP-PT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>APP-PT showed no radiologically significant variation across different pathomorphologies of the hip in patients being assessed for joint-preserving surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B5.BJJ-2023-0690.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate whether anterior pelvic plane-pelvic tilt (APP-PT) is associated with distinct hip pathomorphologies. We asked: is there a difference in APP-PT between young symptomatic patients being evaluated for joint preservation surgery and an asymptomatic control group? Does APP-PT vary among distinct acetabular and femoral pathomorphologies? And does APP-PT differ in symptomatic hips based on demographic factors?

Methods: This was an institutional review board-approved, single-centre, retrospective, case-control, comparative study, which included 388 symptomatic hips in 357 patients who presented to our tertiary centre for joint preservation between January 2011 and December 2015. Their mean age was 26 years (SD 2; 23 to 29) and 50% were female. They were allocated to 12 different morphological subgroups. The study group was compared with a control group of 20 asymptomatic hips in 20 patients. APP-PT was assessed in all patients based on supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using validated HipRecon software. Values in the two groups were compared using an independent-samples t-test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the influences of diagnoses and demographic factors on APP-PT. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for APP-PT was defined as > 1 SD.

Results: There were no significant differences in APP-PT between the control group and the overall group (1.1° (SD 3.0°; -4.9° to 5.9°) vs 1.8° (SD 3.4°; -6.9° to 13.2°); p = 0.323). Acetabular retroversion and overcoverage groups showed higher mean APP-PTs compared with the control group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014) and were the only diagnoses with a significant influence on APP-PT in the stepwise multiple regression analysis. All differences were below the MCID. The age, sex, height, weight, and BMI showed no influence on APP-PT.

Conclusion: APP-PT showed no radiologically significant variation across different pathomorphologies of the hip in patients being assessed for joint-preserving surgery.

髋臼和股骨形态对骨盆倾斜的影响。
目的:本研究旨在探讨骨盆平面-骨盆前倾(APP-PT)是否与不同的髋关节病理形态有关。我们的问题是:正在接受关节保留手术评估的年轻无症状患者与无症状对照组之间的APP-PT是否存在差异?APP-PT在不同的髋臼和股骨病理形态中是否存在差异?APP-PT在无症状髋关节中是否因人口统计学因素而异?这是一项经机构审查委员会批准的单中心、回顾性、病例对照比较研究,纳入了2011年1月至2015年12月期间到我们的三级中心接受关节保留治疗的357名患者中的388个无症状髋关节。他们的平均年龄为26岁(SD 2;23至29岁),50%为女性。他们被分配到12个不同的形态亚组。研究组与对照组的20名无症状髋关节患者进行了比较。所有患者的APP-PT都是根据仰卧位骨盆前后位X光片,使用经过验证的HipRecon软件进行评估的。采用独立样本 t 检验比较两组的数值。进行了多元回归分析,以研究诊断和人口统计学因素对APP-PT的影响。APP-PT的最小临床重要差异(MCID)定义为> 1 SD:结果:对照组与总体组的 APP-PT 无明显差异(1.1°(标清 3.0°;-4.9°至 5.9°) vs 1.8°(标清 3.4°;-6.9°至 13.2°);P = 0.323)。与对照组相比,髋臼后移组和覆盖过度组的APP-PT平均值更高(p = 0.001和p = 0.014),是逐步多元回归分析中唯一对APP-PT有显著影响的诊断。所有差异均低于 MCID。年龄、性别、身高、体重和体重指数对APP-PT没有影响:结论:APP-PT在接受关节保留手术评估的髋关节不同病理形态中没有明显的放射学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Journal
Bone & Joint Journal ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.90%
发文量
318
期刊介绍: We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信