Reply to the comment on the editorial “An attempt to throw light on congenital hip disease terminology and anticipation of clinical outcomes when treated with total hip arthroplasty” made by Denisov A

Abstract

We have read the comments made by Denisov A and colleagues related to our editorial with great interest. 1,2 The authors are correct in stating that classification of the different types of congenital hip disease is sometimes difficult and that further subdivision is needed. For this reason, we have already described sup-types of low and high dislocation hips 3 for the validated Hartofilakis classification. 4-8 Furthermore, we agree, with their suggestion that, during preoperative panning, CT-scan evaluation is often needed. 9 However, the authors missed the main point of the editorial. We wanted to examine two important issues. Firstly, authors indiscriminately use terms such as dysplasia, subluxation, congenital hip disease, developmental hip disease and congenital dislocation of the hip in order to describe the different types of the disease, which results in serious confusion. Secondly, the interpretation of clinical outcomes in published papers is difficult because in the majority of studies different types of the disease are included in varying degrees, different reconstructive challenges are addressed in each type of the disease and different implants and techniques are used. It is like comparing apples with oranges. In our opinion, journals, specialising in this field, should publish homogeneous series (type of the disease, reconstruction technique, implants) in order to clarify arguments and anticipate clinical outcomes. Theofilos S Karachalios Editor-in-Chief Reply to the comment on the editorial "An attempt to throw light on congenital hip disease terminology and anticipation of clinical outcomes when treated with total hip arthroplasty" made by Denisov A