Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2021
Comparison between cup implantations during total hip arthroplasty with or without a history of rotational acetabular osteotomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tanaka Takeyuki, Moro Toru, Asai Shin, Hashikura Kazuaki, Ishikura Hisatoshi, Tanaka Sakae
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) after rotational acetabular osteotomy (RAO) is technically demanding because of the characteristic acetabular morphology after RAO. The present study aimed to investigate the differences in the three-dimensional cup position between THA after RAO and primary THA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the pre-operative and post-operative computed tomography (CT) data of 120 patients (20 patients after RAO and 100 patients without a history of RAO) who underwent THA between January 2017 and June 2018. We evaluated radiographic parameters, including acetabular anteversion, antero-posterior distance at the level of the femoral head centre, the presence of anterior acetabular osteophyte and/or rotated fragment during RAO from the CT data. Additionally, operative data and clinical scores were also evaluated.
RESULTS: Although we found no significant differences in any clinical parameters, there were significant differences in radiographic parameters and operative data. The morphology of the acetabulum was significantly retroverted, and the antero-posterior distance was longer in patients after RAO, compared to the implanted cup. Additionally, longer operative time was necessary for such patients. These results reflect the atypical acetabular morphology after RAO, and emphasize that care should be taken to avoid anterior bony impingement and post-operative dislocation.
CONCLUSION: For cup implantation during THA after RAO, surgeons should acknowledge the atypical morphology of the acetabulum and not be misled by its visual shape.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the pre-operative and post-operative computed tomography (CT) data of 120 patients (20 patients after RAO and 100 patients without a history of RAO) who underwent THA between January 2017 and June 2018. We evaluated radiographic parameters, including acetabular anteversion, antero-posterior distance at the level of the femoral head centre, the presence of anterior acetabular osteophyte and/or rotated fragment during RAO from the CT data. Additionally, operative data and clinical scores were also evaluated.
RESULTS: Although we found no significant differences in any clinical parameters, there were significant differences in radiographic parameters and operative data. The morphology of the acetabulum was significantly retroverted, and the antero-posterior distance was longer in patients after RAO, compared to the implanted cup. Additionally, longer operative time was necessary for such patients. These results reflect the atypical acetabular morphology after RAO, and emphasize that care should be taken to avoid anterior bony impingement and post-operative dislocation.
CONCLUSION: For cup implantation during THA after RAO, surgeons should acknowledge the atypical morphology of the acetabulum and not be misled by its visual shape.