致编辑:双侧股髋臼撞击:无症状髋关节的命运是什么?

Yusuke Kohno
{"title":"致编辑:双侧股髋臼撞击:无症状髋关节的命运是什么?","authors":"Yusuke Kohno","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000000974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To the Editor, I read the study by Azboy and colleagues [1] with great interest. In their study, the authors addressed the prognosis of the asymptomatic hip in patients with bilateral radiographic signs of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and unilateral symptomatic FAI. I believe it is worth examining their study’s patient inclusion criteria. My concern is that patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) were included in their study (25 of 74 patients). The definition of DDH was not shown in the paper, but a patient with lateral center-edge angle of 11° was included, and this made me wonder whether at least some of these patients were experiencing symptoms from DDH rather than FAI. They stated that of the 74 patients including DDH, 60 patients became symptomatic, and most of them underwent subsequent surgical intervention on the contralateral hip. If some of these patients may have had DDH in addition to radiographic FAI, it may be difficult or impossible to attribute the hip pain to FAI, rather than to instability from DDH. The pathomechanism that causes hip damage in DDH are completely different from the mechanism that causes hip injury in FAI [5]. In DDH, the unstable femoral head migrates and subluxates in regions where the femoral head is least covered, while in FAI, the femoral head remains wellcentered, but the free arc of hip motion is limited by either a prominent acetabular margin (pincer type), a misshapen proximal femur (cam type), or a combination of the two (mixed type) [5]. This suggests that as long as DDH is present, hip symptoms are likely to be caused by hip instability, even if concomitant cam deformity is present [7]. It is notable that cam deformity was occasionally found in patients with DDH who underwent periacetabular osteotomy (22%); however, none of them had symptoms of FAI [3]. A systematic review also demonstrated that patients with lateral center-edge angle of < 25° should not be considered to have FAI to differentiate other pathologies such as hip instability [8]. In my view, patients with DDH should be considered separately when examining FAI unless impingement is clearly demonstrated by some kind of objective methods like kinematic analysis. Azboy and colleagues [1] do not recommend any particular intervention for the patients who developed hip pain in the asymptomatic hip; however, evidence suggests that we should be skeptical of isolated arthroscopic FAI procedures that do not address the underlying DDH [2, 4, 6]. Since pelvic osteotomy is needed to definitively treat the pathoanatomy of DDH, we should question whether isolated arthroscopic treatments are effective over a long period for patients with DDH.","PeriodicalId":10465,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Letter to the Editor: Bilateral Femoroacetabular Impingement: What is the Fate of the Asymptomatic Hip?\",\"authors\":\"Yusuke Kohno\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CORR.0000000000000974\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To the Editor, I read the study by Azboy and colleagues [1] with great interest. In their study, the authors addressed the prognosis of the asymptomatic hip in patients with bilateral radiographic signs of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and unilateral symptomatic FAI. I believe it is worth examining their study’s patient inclusion criteria. My concern is that patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) were included in their study (25 of 74 patients). The definition of DDH was not shown in the paper, but a patient with lateral center-edge angle of 11° was included, and this made me wonder whether at least some of these patients were experiencing symptoms from DDH rather than FAI. They stated that of the 74 patients including DDH, 60 patients became symptomatic, and most of them underwent subsequent surgical intervention on the contralateral hip. If some of these patients may have had DDH in addition to radiographic FAI, it may be difficult or impossible to attribute the hip pain to FAI, rather than to instability from DDH. The pathomechanism that causes hip damage in DDH are completely different from the mechanism that causes hip injury in FAI [5]. In DDH, the unstable femoral head migrates and subluxates in regions where the femoral head is least covered, while in FAI, the femoral head remains wellcentered, but the free arc of hip motion is limited by either a prominent acetabular margin (pincer type), a misshapen proximal femur (cam type), or a combination of the two (mixed type) [5]. This suggests that as long as DDH is present, hip symptoms are likely to be caused by hip instability, even if concomitant cam deformity is present [7]. It is notable that cam deformity was occasionally found in patients with DDH who underwent periacetabular osteotomy (22%); however, none of them had symptoms of FAI [3]. A systematic review also demonstrated that patients with lateral center-edge angle of < 25° should not be considered to have FAI to differentiate other pathologies such as hip instability [8]. In my view, patients with DDH should be considered separately when examining FAI unless impingement is clearly demonstrated by some kind of objective methods like kinematic analysis. Azboy and colleagues [1] do not recommend any particular intervention for the patients who developed hip pain in the asymptomatic hip; however, evidence suggests that we should be skeptical of isolated arthroscopic FAI procedures that do not address the underlying DDH [2, 4, 6]. Since pelvic osteotomy is needed to definitively treat the pathoanatomy of DDH, we should question whether isolated arthroscopic treatments are effective over a long period for patients with DDH.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000974\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000974","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

致编辑,我怀着极大的兴趣阅读了Azboy和他的同事b[1]的研究。在他们的研究中,作者讨论了有双侧股髋臼撞击(FAI)和单侧症状性FAI的无症状髋关节患者的预后。我认为值得检查他们研究的患者纳入标准。我担心的是患有髋关节发育不良(DDH)的患者被纳入了他们的研究(74例患者中有25例)。文章没有给出DDH的定义,但其中包括了一个外侧中心边缘角为11°的患者,这让我怀疑这些患者中是否至少有一部分是DDH而不是FAI的症状。他们表示,包括DDH在内的74例患者中,有60例患者出现症状,其中大多数患者随后接受了对侧髋关节的手术干预。如果其中一些患者除了影像学上的FAI外可能还患有DDH,则很难或不可能将髋关节疼痛归因于FAI,而不是DDH引起的不稳定。DDH引起髋关节损伤的病理机制与FAI bbb引起髋关节损伤的病理机制完全不同。在DDH中,不稳定的股骨头在股骨头覆盖最少的区域迁移和半脱位,而在FAI中,股骨头保持在中心位置,但髋部运动的自由弧度受到突出的髋臼缘(钳型),畸形的股骨近端(凸轮型)或两者的组合(混合型)的限制。这表明,只要DDH存在,髋关节症状很可能是由髋关节不稳定引起的,即使伴有髋部畸形。值得注意的是,在行髋臼周围截骨术的DDH患者中偶尔发现凸轮畸形(22%);然而,他们都没有FAI bbb的症状。一项系统综述也表明,在区分其他病理如髋关节不稳定[8]时,不应将外侧中心边缘角< 25°的患者视为FAI。在我看来,DDH患者在检查FAI时应单独考虑,除非通过运动学分析等客观方法明确证明撞击。Azboy及其同事不建议对无症状髋关节疼痛患者进行任何特殊干预;然而,有证据表明,我们应该对孤立的关节镜下FAI手术持怀疑态度,因为它不能解决潜在的DDH[2,4,6]。由于需要骨盆截骨术来明确治疗DDH的病理解剖,我们应该质疑孤立的关节镜治疗对DDH患者是否长期有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Letter to the Editor: Bilateral Femoroacetabular Impingement: What is the Fate of the Asymptomatic Hip?
To the Editor, I read the study by Azboy and colleagues [1] with great interest. In their study, the authors addressed the prognosis of the asymptomatic hip in patients with bilateral radiographic signs of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and unilateral symptomatic FAI. I believe it is worth examining their study’s patient inclusion criteria. My concern is that patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) were included in their study (25 of 74 patients). The definition of DDH was not shown in the paper, but a patient with lateral center-edge angle of 11° was included, and this made me wonder whether at least some of these patients were experiencing symptoms from DDH rather than FAI. They stated that of the 74 patients including DDH, 60 patients became symptomatic, and most of them underwent subsequent surgical intervention on the contralateral hip. If some of these patients may have had DDH in addition to radiographic FAI, it may be difficult or impossible to attribute the hip pain to FAI, rather than to instability from DDH. The pathomechanism that causes hip damage in DDH are completely different from the mechanism that causes hip injury in FAI [5]. In DDH, the unstable femoral head migrates and subluxates in regions where the femoral head is least covered, while in FAI, the femoral head remains wellcentered, but the free arc of hip motion is limited by either a prominent acetabular margin (pincer type), a misshapen proximal femur (cam type), or a combination of the two (mixed type) [5]. This suggests that as long as DDH is present, hip symptoms are likely to be caused by hip instability, even if concomitant cam deformity is present [7]. It is notable that cam deformity was occasionally found in patients with DDH who underwent periacetabular osteotomy (22%); however, none of them had symptoms of FAI [3]. A systematic review also demonstrated that patients with lateral center-edge angle of < 25° should not be considered to have FAI to differentiate other pathologies such as hip instability [8]. In my view, patients with DDH should be considered separately when examining FAI unless impingement is clearly demonstrated by some kind of objective methods like kinematic analysis. Azboy and colleagues [1] do not recommend any particular intervention for the patients who developed hip pain in the asymptomatic hip; however, evidence suggests that we should be skeptical of isolated arthroscopic FAI procedures that do not address the underlying DDH [2, 4, 6]. Since pelvic osteotomy is needed to definitively treat the pathoanatomy of DDH, we should question whether isolated arthroscopic treatments are effective over a long period for patients with DDH.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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