Background We previously reported the 5-year followup of hips with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) that underwent surgical hip dislocation with trimming of the head-neck junction and/or acetabulum including reattachment of the labrum. The goal of this study was to report a concise followup of these patients at a minimum 10 years. Questions/purposes We asked if these patients had (1) improved hip pain and function; we then determined (2) the 10-year survival rate and (3) calculated factors predicting failure. Methods Between July 2001 and March 2003, we performed surgical hip dislocation and femoral neck osteoplasty and/or acetabular rim trimming with labral reattachment in 75 patients (97 hips). Of those, 72 patients (93 hips [96%]) were available for followup at a minimum of 10 years (mean, 11 years; range, 10-13 years). We used the anterior impingement test to assess pain and the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score to assess function. Survivorship calculation was performed using the method of Kaplan and Meier and any of the following factors as a definition of failure: conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), radiographic evidence of worsening osteoarthritis (OA), or a Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score less than 15. Predictive factors for any of these failures were calculated using the Cox regression analysis. Results At 10-year followup, the prevalence of a positive impingement test decreased from preoperative 95% to 38% (p \ 0.001) and the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score increased from preoperative 15.3 ± 1.4 (range, 9-17) to 16.9 ± 1.3 (12-18; p \ 0.001). Survivorship of these procedures for any of the defined failures was 80% (95% confidence interval, 72%-88%). The strongest predictors of failure were age [ 40 years (hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval, 5.9 [4.8-7.1], p = 0.002), body mass index [ 30 kg/m 2 (5.5 [3.9-7.2], p = 0.041), a lateral center-edge angle \ 22°o r [ 32°(5.4 [4.2-6.6], p = 0.006), and a posterior acetabular coverage \ 34% (4.8 [3.7-5.6], p = 0.006). Conclusions At 10-year followup, 80% of patients with FAI treated with surgical hip dislocation, osteoplasty, and labral reattachment had not progressed to THA, developed worsening OA, or had a Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score of less than 15. Radiographic predictors for failure were related to over-and undertreatment of acetabular rim trimming. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.

Background Residual acetabular dysplasia is seen in combination with femoral pathomorphologies including an aspherical femoral head and valgus neck-shaft angle with high antetorsion. It is unclear how these femoral pathomorphologies affect range of motion (ROM) and impingement zones after periacetabular osteotomy. Questions/purposes (1) Does periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) restore the typically excessive ROM in dysplastic hips compared with normal hips; (2) how do impingement locations differ in dysplastic hips before and after PAO compared with normal hips; (3) does a concomitant camtype morphology adversely affect internal rotation; and (4) does a concomitant varus-derotation intertrochanteric osteotomy (IO) affect external rotation? Methods Between January 1999 and March 2002, we performed 200 PAOs for dysplasia; of those, 27 hips (14%) met prespecified study inclusion criteria, including availability of a pre-and postoperative CT scan that included the hip and the distal femur. In general, we obtained those scans to evaluate the pre-and postoperative acetabular and femoral morphology, the degree of acetabular reorientation, and healing of the osteotomies. Three-dimensional surface models based on CT scans of 27 hips before and after PAO and 19 normal hips were created. Normal hips were obtained from a population of CT-based computerassisted THAs using the contralateral hip after exclusion of symptomatic hips or hips with abnormal radiographic anatomy. Using validated and computerized methods, we then determined ROM (flexion/extension, internal-[IR]/ external rotation [ER], adduction/abduction) and two motion patterns including the anterior (IR in flexion) and posterior (ER in extension) impingement tests. The computed impingement locations were assigned to anatomical locations of the pelvis and the femur. ROM was calculated separately for hips with (n = 13) and without (n = 14) a cam-type morphology and PAOs with (n = 9) and without (n = 18) a concomitant IO. A post hoc power analysis based on the primary research question with an alpha of 0.05 and a beta error of 0.20 revealed a minimal detectable difference of 4.6°of flexion. Results After PAO, flexion, IR, and adduction/abduction did not differ from the nondysplastic control hips with the numbers available (p ranging from 0.061 to 0.867). Extension was decreased (19°± 15°; range, À18°to 30°versus 28°± 3°; range, 19°-30°; p = 0.017) and ER in 0°flexion was increased (25°± 18°; range, À10°to 41°versus 38°± 7°; range, 17°-41°; p = 0.002). Dysplastic hips had a One author (MT) has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research1 neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDAapproval status, of any drug or ...

Background Acetabular retroversion can cause impaction-type femoroacetabular impingement leading to hip pain and osteoarthritis. It can be treated by anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) or acetabular rim trimming with refixation of the labrum. There is increasing evidence that acetabular retroversion is a rotational abnormality of the entire hemipelvis and not a focal overgrowth of the anterior acetabular wall, which favors an anteverting PAO. However, it is unknown if this larger procedure would be beneficial in terms of survivorship and Merle d'Aubigné scores in a midterm followup compared with rim trimming. Questions/purposes We asked if anteverting PAO results in increased survivorship of the hip compared with rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation in patients with symptomatic acetabular retroversion. Methods We performed a retrospective, comparative study evaluating the midterm survivorship of two matched patient groups with symptomatic acetabular retroversion undergoing either anteverting PAO or acetabular rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation. Acetabular retroversion was defined by a concomitantly present positive crossover, posterior wall, and ischial spine sign. A total of 279 hips underwent a surgical intervention for acetabular retroversion at our center between 1997 and 2012 (166 periacetabular osteotomies, 113 rim trimmings through surgical hip dislocation). A total of 99 patients (60%) were excluded from the PAO group and 56 patients (50%) from the rim trimming group because they had any of several prespecified conditions (eg, dysplasia . A minimum followup of 2 years was required for this study. Failures were included at any time. The median followup for the anteverting PAO group was 9.5 years (range, 2-17.4 years) and 6.8 years (range, 2.2-10.5 years) for the rim trimming group (p \ 0.001). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed using the following endpoints at 5 and 10 years: THA, radiographic One author (MT) has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

Background Severe femoral head deformities in the frontal plane such as hips with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD) are not contained by the acetabulum and result in hinged abduction and impingement. These rare deformities cannot be addressed by resection, which would endanger head vascularity. Femoral head reduction osteotomy allows for reshaping of the femoral head with the goal of improving head sphericity, containment, and hip function. Questions/purposes Among hips with severe asphericity of the femoral head, does femoral head reduction osteotomy result in (1) improved head sphericity and containment; (2) pain relief and improved hip function; and (3) subsequent reoperations or complications? Methods Over a 10-year period, we performed femoral head reduction osteotomies in 11 patients (11 hips) with severe head asphericities resulting from LCPD (10 hips) or disturbance of epiphyseal perfusion after conservative treatment of developmental dysplasia (one hip). Five of 11 hips had concomitant acetabular containment surgery including two triple osteotomies, two periacetabular osteotomies (PAOs), and one Colonna procedure. Patients were reviewed at a mean of 5 years (range, 1-10 years), and none was lost to followup. Mean patient age at the time of head reduction osteotomy was 13 years (range, 7-23 years). We obtained the sphericity index (defined as the ratio of the minor to the major axis of the ellipse drawn to best fit the femoral head articular surface on conventional anteroposterior pelvic radiographs) to assess head sphericity. Containment was assessed evaluating the proportion of patients with an intact Shenton's line, the extrusion index, and the lateral center-edge (LCE) angle. Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score and range of motion (flexion, internal/external rotation in 90°of flexion) were assessed to measure pain and function. Complications and reoperations were identified by chart review. Results At latest followup, femoral head sphericity (72%; range, 64%-81% preoperatively versus 85%; range, 73%-96% postoperatively; p = 0.004), extrusion index (47%; range, 25%-60% versus 20%; range, 3%-58%; p = 0.006), and LCE angle (1°; range, À10°to 16°versus 26°; range, 4°-40°; p = 0.0064) were improved compared with preoperatively. With the limited number of hips available, the proportion of an intact Shenton's line (64% versus 100%; p = 0.087) and the overall Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score (14.5; range, 12-16 versus 15.7; range, 12-18;

Background: Diagnosis and surgical treatment of hips with different types of pincer femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), such as protrusio acetabuli and acetabular retroversion, remain controversial because actual 3-dimensional (3D) acetabular coverage and location of impingement cannot be studied via standard 2-dimensional imaging. It remains unclear whether pincer hips exhibit intra- or extra-articular FAI. Purpose: (1) To determine the 3D femoral head coverage in these subgroups of pincer FAI, (2) determine the impingement-free range of motion (ROM) through use of osseous models based on 3D-computed tomography (CT) scans, and (3) determine the osseous intra-and extra-articular 3D impingement zones by use of 3D impingement simulation. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This is a retrospective, comparative, controlled study involving 70 hips in 50 patients. There were 24 patients (44 hips) with symptomatic pincer-type or mixed-type FAI and 26 patients (26 hips) with normal hips. Surface models based on 3D-CT scans were reconstructed and compared for hips with acetabular retroversion (30 hips), hips with protrusio acetabuli (14 hips), and normal asymptomatic hips (26 hips). Impingement-free ROM and location of impingement were determined for all hips through use of validated 3D collision detection software based on CT-based 3D models. No abnormal morphologic features of the anterior iliac inferior spine were detected. Results: (1) Mean total femoral head coverage was significantly ( P < .001) increased in hips with protrusio acetabuli (92% ± 7%) and acetabular retroversion (71% ± 5%) compared with normal hips (66% ± 6%). (2) Mean flexion was significantly ( P < .001) decreased in hips with protrusio acetabuli (104°± 9°) and acetabular retroversion (116°± 6°) compared with normal hips (125°± 13°). Mean internal rotation in 90° of flexion was significantly ( P < .001) decreased in hips with protrusio acetabuli (16°± 12°) compared with normal hips (35°± 13°). (3) The prevalence of extra-articular subspine impingement was significantly ( P < .001) higher in hips with acetabular retroversion (87%) compared with hips with protrusio acetabuli (14%) and normal hips (0%) and was combined with intra-articular impingement. The location of anterior impingement differed significantly ( P < .001) between hips with protrusio acetabuli and normal hips. Conclusion: Using CT-based 3D hip models, we found that hips with pincer-type and mixed-type FAI have significantly larger femoral head coverage and different osseous ROM and location of impingement compared with normal hips. Additionally, intra- and extra-articular subspine impingement was detected predominantly in hips with acetabular retroversion. Acetabular rim trimming during hip arthroscopy or open surgical hip dislocation should be performed with caution for these hips. Patient-specific analysis of location of impingement using 3D-CT could theoretically improve diagnosis and planning of surgical treatment.

Background Protrusio acetabuli is a rare anatomic pattern of the hip in which the femoral head protrudes into the true pelvis. The increased depth of the hip and the excessive size of the lunate surface typically lead to severe pincertype femoroacetabular impingement (FAI); however, to our knowledge, there are no published mid-or long-term studies on results of circumferential acetabular rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation for patients with this condition. Questions/purposes (1) What is the 10-year survivorship of the hips treated with circumferential rim trimming through a surgical hip dislocation compared with a control group of hips that underwent surgery for pincer FAI but that did not have protrusio acetabuli? (2) What are the factors that were associated with a decreased likelihood of survivorship in those hips with the following endpoints: total hip arthroplasty, Merle d'Aubigné score of less than 15, and/or radiographic progression of osteoarthritis (OA)? (3) Does the radiographic pattern of degeneration differ between the two groups?Methods We performed a case-control study comparing two groups: a protrusio group (32 patients [39 hips]) and a control group (66 patients [86 hips]). The control group consisted of hips treated with a surgical hip dislocation for pincer FAI and did not include hips with a positive protrusio sign or a lateral center-edge angle [ 39°. The study group did not differ from the control group regarding the preoperative Tönnis OA score, age, and body mass index. However, the study group had more women, decreased mean height and weight, and lower preoperative Merle d'Aubigné-Postel scores, which were inherent differences at the time of first presentation. During the period in question, the indication for performing these procedures was a painfully restricted range of motion in flexion and internal rotation (positive impingement sign). The mean followup of the protrusio group (9 ± 5 years [range, 2-18 years]) did not differ from the control group (11 ± 1 years [range, 10-13 years], p = 0.109). At the respective minimum followup intervals in the underlying database from which cases and control subjects were drawn, followup was 100% for patients with protrusion who underwent FAI surgery and 97% for patients with FAI who underwent surgery for other anatomic patterns (three of 86 hips). We assessed the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score, Harris hip score, WOMAC, and UCLA activity score at latest followup. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis of the hip was calculated if any of the following endpoints for both groups occurred: conversion to total hip arthroplasty, a Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score \ 15, and/or radiographic progression of OA. Differences in survivorship were analyzed using the log-rank test. Results At 10-year followup, we found a decreased survivorship of the hip for the protrusio group (51% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 34%-67%]) compared with the control group (83% [95% CI, 75%-91%], p \ 0.001) with -016-4918-9 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ...

Background Ultrasonography is a fast and patient-friendly modality to assess cartilage thickness. However, inconsistent results regarding accuracy have been reported. Therefore, we asked what are (1) the accuracy, (2) reproducibility, and (3) reliability of ultrasonographic cartilage thickness measurement using contrast-enhanced micro-CT for validation? Methods A series of 50 cartilage–bone plugs were harvested from fresh bovine and porcine joints. Ultrasonic cartilage thickness was determined using an A-mode, 20-MHz hand-held ultrasonic probe with native (1580 m/s) and adjusted speed of sound (1696 m/s). All measurements were performed by two observers at two different occasions. Angle of insonation was controlled by tilting the device and recording minimal thickness. Retrieval of exact location for measurement was facilitated by aligning the circular design of both cartilage–bone plug and ultrasonic device. There was no soft tissue interference between cartilage surface and ultrasonic probe. Ground truth measurement was performed using micro-CT with iodine contrast agent and a voxel size of 16 μm. The mean cartilage thickness was 1.383 ± 0.402 mm (range, 0.588–2.460 mm). Results Mean accuracy was 0.074 ± 0.061 mm (0.002–0.256 mm) for native and 0.093 ± 0.098 mm (0.000–0.401 mm) for adjusted speed of sound. Bland–Altman analysis showed no systematic error. High correlation was found for native and adjusted speed of sound with contrast-enhanced micro-CT (both r = 0.973; p < 0.001). A perfect agreement for reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.992 and 0.994) and reliability (ICC 0.993, 95% confidence interval 0.990–0.995) was found. Conclusions Ultrasonic cartilage thickness measurement could be shown to be highly accurate, reliable, and reproducible. The A-mode ultrasonic cartilage thickness measurement is a fast and patient-friendly modality which can detect early joint degeneration and facilitate decision making in joint preserving surgery. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13018-019-1099-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract