Kartik Logishetty, Paul Haggis, Saif Salih, George Grammatopoulos, Tom Pollard, Johan D Witt, Antonio J Andrade
{"title":"股骨与髋臼截骨术治疗合并型畸形导致股髋臼撞击:一项病例对照匹配研究。","authors":"Kartik Logishetty, Paul Haggis, Saif Salih, George Grammatopoulos, Tom Pollard, Johan D Witt, Antonio J Andrade","doi":"10.1093/jhps/hnaf013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between anteverting proximal femoral osteotomy (APFO) and anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (APAO) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) due to combined acetabular retroversion (ARV) and femoral retrotorsion (FRT). We also compared these outcomes with hip arthroscopy (HA) for FAIS without ARV or FRT. Twelve patients with ARV and FRT underwent either APAO (six) or APFO (six) at two centres. A control group of 24 patients underwent HA for FAIS without version abnormality. Outcome measures included various hip scores, time to radiological bony union, complications, and conversion to hip arthroplasty. At the 2-year follow-up, no AFPO or APAO hips required arthroplasty. Patient-reported outcome scores showed no significant difference between the APAO and APFO groups: Non-Arthritic Hips Scores (NAHS) (APAO: median 72, range 52-78; APFO: 76, 52-80, <i>P</i> = .76), International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) (APAO: 64, 48-70 vs. APFO: 55, 46-72, <i>P</i> = .57), EuroQol 5 Dimension Visual Analogue Scale (APAO: 72, 57-78 vs. APFO: 75, 49-80 <i>P</i> = .78), and University of California Los Angeles Score (APAO: 7, 4-8 vs. APFO: 6, 4-9 <i>P</i> = .43). APAO patients achieved radiological union faster (10.2 weeks: 6.6-19.3 vs. 19.2 weeks: 12-23, <i>P</i> = .05). Aside from metalwork removal, one AFPO patient required revision intramedullary nail to induce union. Compared to AFPO or APAO, HA patients (NAHS: 86.7, 72.1-94.1; iHOT-12: 73.1, 63.2-88.1) had better outcome scores (<i>P</i> < .05). Both APFO and APAO can achieve good outcomes and short-term survivorship for combined ARV and FRT, although function may be inferior to HA in patients without rotational abnormalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48583,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery","volume":"12 3","pages":"164-168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12461207/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Femoral versus acetabular osteotomy for treating combined version deformities leading to femoroacetabular impingement: a case-control matched study.\",\"authors\":\"Kartik Logishetty, Paul Haggis, Saif Salih, George Grammatopoulos, Tom Pollard, Johan D Witt, Antonio J Andrade\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jhps/hnaf013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between anteverting proximal femoral osteotomy (APFO) and anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (APAO) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) due to combined acetabular retroversion (ARV) and femoral retrotorsion (FRT). We also compared these outcomes with hip arthroscopy (HA) for FAIS without ARV or FRT. Twelve patients with ARV and FRT underwent either APAO (six) or APFO (six) at two centres. A control group of 24 patients underwent HA for FAIS without version abnormality. Outcome measures included various hip scores, time to radiological bony union, complications, and conversion to hip arthroplasty. At the 2-year follow-up, no AFPO or APAO hips required arthroplasty. Patient-reported outcome scores showed no significant difference between the APAO and APFO groups: Non-Arthritic Hips Scores (NAHS) (APAO: median 72, range 52-78; APFO: 76, 52-80, <i>P</i> = .76), International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) (APAO: 64, 48-70 vs. APFO: 55, 46-72, <i>P</i> = .57), EuroQol 5 Dimension Visual Analogue Scale (APAO: 72, 57-78 vs. APFO: 75, 49-80 <i>P</i> = .78), and University of California Los Angeles Score (APAO: 7, 4-8 vs. APFO: 6, 4-9 <i>P</i> = .43). APAO patients achieved radiological union faster (10.2 weeks: 6.6-19.3 vs. 19.2 weeks: 12-23, <i>P</i> = .05). Aside from metalwork removal, one AFPO patient required revision intramedullary nail to induce union. Compared to AFPO or APAO, HA patients (NAHS: 86.7, 72.1-94.1; iHOT-12: 73.1, 63.2-88.1) had better outcome scores (<i>P</i> < .05). Both APFO and APAO can achieve good outcomes and short-term survivorship for combined ARV and FRT, although function may be inferior to HA in patients without rotational abnormalities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery\",\"volume\":\"12 3\",\"pages\":\"164-168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12461207/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnaf013\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnaf013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究的目的是比较前向股骨近端截骨术(APFO)和前向髋臼周围截骨术(APAO)治疗髋臼撞击综合征(FAIS)的结果,这是由于髋臼后旋(ARV)和股骨后旋(FRT)联合引起的。我们还将这些结果与没有ARV或FRT的FAIS患者的髋关节镜(HA)进行了比较。在两个中心,有12例ARV和FRT患者接受了APAO(6例)或APFO(6例)。对照组24例FAIS患者行HA治疗,无版本异常。结果测量包括各种髋关节评分、放射骨愈合时间、并发症和转髋关节置换术。在2年的随访中,没有AFPO或APAO髋关节需要置换术。患者报告的预后评分在APAO组和APFO组之间无显著差异:非关节炎髋关节评分(NAHS) (APAO:中位数72,范围52-78;APFO: 76, 52-80, P =。76),国际髋关节预后工具12 (iHOT-12) (APAO: 64, 48-70对APFO: 55, 46-72, P =。57), EuroQol 5维视觉模拟量表(APAO: 72,57 -78 vs. APFO: 75,49 -80 P =。78),以及加州大学洛杉矶分校评分(APAO: 7,4 -8 vs. APFO: 6,4 -9 P = .43)。APAO患者放射愈合更快(10.2周:6.6-19.3 vs. 19.2周:12-23,P = 0.05)。除了去除金属制品外,一名AFPO患者需要翻修髓内钉以诱导愈合。与AFPO或APAO相比,HA患者(NAHS: 86.7, 72.1-94.1; iHOT-12: 73.1, 63.2-88.1)的预后评分更好(P
Femoral versus acetabular osteotomy for treating combined version deformities leading to femoroacetabular impingement: a case-control matched study.
The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between anteverting proximal femoral osteotomy (APFO) and anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (APAO) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) due to combined acetabular retroversion (ARV) and femoral retrotorsion (FRT). We also compared these outcomes with hip arthroscopy (HA) for FAIS without ARV or FRT. Twelve patients with ARV and FRT underwent either APAO (six) or APFO (six) at two centres. A control group of 24 patients underwent HA for FAIS without version abnormality. Outcome measures included various hip scores, time to radiological bony union, complications, and conversion to hip arthroplasty. At the 2-year follow-up, no AFPO or APAO hips required arthroplasty. Patient-reported outcome scores showed no significant difference between the APAO and APFO groups: Non-Arthritic Hips Scores (NAHS) (APAO: median 72, range 52-78; APFO: 76, 52-80, P = .76), International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) (APAO: 64, 48-70 vs. APFO: 55, 46-72, P = .57), EuroQol 5 Dimension Visual Analogue Scale (APAO: 72, 57-78 vs. APFO: 75, 49-80 P = .78), and University of California Los Angeles Score (APAO: 7, 4-8 vs. APFO: 6, 4-9 P = .43). APAO patients achieved radiological union faster (10.2 weeks: 6.6-19.3 vs. 19.2 weeks: 12-23, P = .05). Aside from metalwork removal, one AFPO patient required revision intramedullary nail to induce union. Compared to AFPO or APAO, HA patients (NAHS: 86.7, 72.1-94.1; iHOT-12: 73.1, 63.2-88.1) had better outcome scores (P < .05). Both APFO and APAO can achieve good outcomes and short-term survivorship for combined ARV and FRT, although function may be inferior to HA in patients without rotational abnormalities.