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 ...