Comparing outcomes of hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of borderline hip dysplasia: a systematic review

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Alexander B Alvero, Michael J Vogel, Joshua Wright-Chisem, Shane J Nho
{"title":"Comparing outcomes of hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of borderline hip dysplasia: a systematic review","authors":"Alexander B Alvero, Michael J Vogel, Joshua Wright-Chisem, Shane J Nho","doi":"10.1093/jhps/hnae028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hip arthroscopy (HA) and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) are common hip preservation procedures pursued in borderline hip dysplasia (BHD), yet there is no consensus on the preferred treatment. This systematic review aims to synthesize the present literature on HA and PAO for the management of BHD. A review of multiple electronic databases was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All studies that reported outcomes of patients with BHD treated by PAO or HA with capsular closure were included. PROs, complications, and rates of subsequent surgery were evaluated. A total of 14 studies met criteria for inclusion. Eight reported outcomes following PAO and seven reported outcomes following HA. One study reported outcomes of both procedures. Both PAO and HA studies demonstrated significant improvement in PROs. Complication rates in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 7.8% compared to 0% in HA patients. Total hip arthroplasty (THO) conversion rates in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 10.5% compared to 0% to 23.7% in HA patients. Hardware removal was performed in 25–51% of PAO patients. PAO conversion following failed HA occurred in 0–6.1% of patients. Rates of other reoperation (excluding hardware removal) in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 22.2% compared to 0% to 7.9% in HA patients. Based on the current evidence, both PAO and HA demonstrate significant improvement in PROs with a low conversion rate to THA, yet additional long-term follow-up studies are required.","PeriodicalId":48583,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnae028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hip arthroscopy (HA) and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) are common hip preservation procedures pursued in borderline hip dysplasia (BHD), yet there is no consensus on the preferred treatment. This systematic review aims to synthesize the present literature on HA and PAO for the management of BHD. A review of multiple electronic databases was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All studies that reported outcomes of patients with BHD treated by PAO or HA with capsular closure were included. PROs, complications, and rates of subsequent surgery were evaluated. A total of 14 studies met criteria for inclusion. Eight reported outcomes following PAO and seven reported outcomes following HA. One study reported outcomes of both procedures. Both PAO and HA studies demonstrated significant improvement in PROs. Complication rates in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 7.8% compared to 0% in HA patients. Total hip arthroplasty (THO) conversion rates in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 10.5% compared to 0% to 23.7% in HA patients. Hardware removal was performed in 25–51% of PAO patients. PAO conversion following failed HA occurred in 0–6.1% of patients. Rates of other reoperation (excluding hardware removal) in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 22.2% compared to 0% to 7.9% in HA patients. Based on the current evidence, both PAO and HA demonstrate significant improvement in PROs with a low conversion rate to THA, yet additional long-term follow-up studies are required.
比较髋关节镜和髋臼周围截骨术治疗边缘性髋关节发育不良的疗效:系统性综述
髋关节镜(HA)和髋臼周围截骨术(PAO)是边缘性髋关节发育不良(BHD)患者常用的保髋手术,但对于首选的治疗方法尚未达成共识。本系统性综述旨在总结目前关于HA和PAO治疗BHD的文献。我们采用《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南对多个电子数据库进行了综述。所有报告了采用 PAO 或 HA 进行囊袋闭合治疗的 BHD 患者疗效的研究均被纳入其中。研究对患者的PROs、并发症和后续手术率进行了评估。共有 14 项研究符合纳入标准。其中 8 项报告了 PAO 治疗后的结果,7 项报告了 HA 治疗后的结果。一项研究报告了两种手术的结果。PAO 和 HA 两项研究均显示 PROs 有显著改善。PAO 患者的并发症发生率为 0% 至 7.8%,而 HA 患者的并发症发生率为 0%。PAO 患者的全髋关节置换术(THO)转换率为 0% 至 10.5%,而 HA 患者的转换率为 0% 至 23.7%。25%-51%的 PAO 患者进行了硬件移除。0-6.1%的患者在HA手术失败后转为PAO手术。PAO 患者的其他再手术率(不包括硬件移除)从 0% 到 22.2% 不等,而 HA 患者的再手术率从 0% 到 7.9% 不等。根据目前的证据,PAO 和 HA 都能显著改善患者的 PROs,而且转为 THA 的比例较低,但仍需进行更多的长期随访研究。
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
自引率
20.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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