Total hip arthroplasty after pelvic osteotomy: a meta-analysis.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
S-W Huan, W-R Wu, S-J Peng, T-F Zhuang, N Liu
{"title":"Total hip arthroplasty after pelvic osteotomy: a meta-analysis.","authors":"S-W Huan, W-R Wu, S-J Peng, T-F Zhuang, N Liu","doi":"10.52628/90.3.10758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several studies suggested that total hip arthroplasty (THA) was more technical demanding following previous pelvic osteotomy (PO), resulting in poor outcomes compared with primary THA. However, the other studies regarding this topic had reported contradictory results. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare the clinical results and other parameters between total hip arthroplasty following pelvic osteotomy and primary total hip arthroplasty. We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO and Web of science from inception to September 2020. This study compared the outcomes between THA following previous PO and primary THA with respect to operative time, blood loss, Harris hip score (HHS), revision rates, complication rates, cup position, cup size, cup coverage and hip joint center. 14 studies with 3913 participants were included. The THA after PO group had longer operative time (MD, 13.8 mins; 95% CI, 4.73 to 22.87 mins; P=0.003), greater blood loss (MD, 82.21 ml; 95% CI, 27.94 to 136.48 ml; P=0.003), worse HHS (MD, -2.79 points; 95% CI, -4.08 to -1.50 points; P<0.00001), smaller acetabular anteversion angle (MD, -3.98°; 95% CI, -6.72 to -1.24°; P=0.004), larger cup size (MD, 1.52 mm; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.28 mm; P=0.0001), more lateral (MD, 2.83 mm; 95% CI, 1.22 to 4.43 mm; P=0.0005) and superior (MD, 2.26 mm; 95% CI, 1.11 to 3.40 mm; P=0.0001) hip joint center. No statistically significant differences were demonstrated between the THA after PO group and primary THA group in revision rates, complication rates, acetabular abduction angle, cup coverage. THA after pelvic osteotomy was associated with inferior intraoperative outcomes, lower functional scores and worse inferior positioning of acetabular component compared with primary THA. Due to the alerted anatomical structure after PO, the findings of current study implicated that preoperative assessment such as computed tomography scan should be conducted in order to achieve satisfactory results.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":"90 3","pages":"523-533"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/90.3.10758","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several studies suggested that total hip arthroplasty (THA) was more technical demanding following previous pelvic osteotomy (PO), resulting in poor outcomes compared with primary THA. However, the other studies regarding this topic had reported contradictory results. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare the clinical results and other parameters between total hip arthroplasty following pelvic osteotomy and primary total hip arthroplasty. We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO and Web of science from inception to September 2020. This study compared the outcomes between THA following previous PO and primary THA with respect to operative time, blood loss, Harris hip score (HHS), revision rates, complication rates, cup position, cup size, cup coverage and hip joint center. 14 studies with 3913 participants were included. The THA after PO group had longer operative time (MD, 13.8 mins; 95% CI, 4.73 to 22.87 mins; P=0.003), greater blood loss (MD, 82.21 ml; 95% CI, 27.94 to 136.48 ml; P=0.003), worse HHS (MD, -2.79 points; 95% CI, -4.08 to -1.50 points; P<0.00001), smaller acetabular anteversion angle (MD, -3.98°; 95% CI, -6.72 to -1.24°; P=0.004), larger cup size (MD, 1.52 mm; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.28 mm; P=0.0001), more lateral (MD, 2.83 mm; 95% CI, 1.22 to 4.43 mm; P=0.0005) and superior (MD, 2.26 mm; 95% CI, 1.11 to 3.40 mm; P=0.0001) hip joint center. No statistically significant differences were demonstrated between the THA after PO group and primary THA group in revision rates, complication rates, acetabular abduction angle, cup coverage. THA after pelvic osteotomy was associated with inferior intraoperative outcomes, lower functional scores and worse inferior positioning of acetabular component compared with primary THA. Due to the alerted anatomical structure after PO, the findings of current study implicated that preoperative assessment such as computed tomography scan should be conducted in order to achieve satisfactory results.

盆腔截骨术后全髋关节置换术:荟萃分析。
一些研究表明,在先前的骨盆截骨术(PO)之后,全髋关节置换术(THA)的技术要求更高,与原发性THA相比,结果较差。然而,关于这一主题的其他研究报告了相互矛盾的结果。因此,我们进行meta分析,比较盆腔截骨后全髋关节置换术与初次全髋关节置换术的临床结果及其他参数。我们系统地检索了PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、EMBASE、Web of Science、Scopus、EBSCO和Web of Science从成立到2020年9月。本研究比较了既往髋关节置换术和初次髋关节置换术在手术时间、出血量、Harris髋关节评分(HHS)、翻修率、并发症发生率、罩杯位置、罩杯大小、罩杯覆盖率和髋关节中心等方面的结果。纳入了14项研究,共3913名参与者。PO后THA组手术时间更长(MD, 13.8 min;95% CI, 4.73 ~ 22.87 min;P=0.003),出血量较大(MD, 82.21 ml;95% CI, 27.94 ~ 136.48 ml;P=0.003), HHS较差(MD, -2.79分;95% CI, -4.08 ~ -1.50点;P
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
Acta orthopaedica Belgica
Acta orthopaedica Belgica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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