Is Prior Nonoperative or Operative Treatment of Dysplasia of the Hip Associated With Poorer Results of Periacetabular Osteotomy?

BACKGROUND: Understanding the implications of either nonoperative or operative treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) performed before periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is critical to counseling patients and their families. There are limited studies, however, on PAO for the treatment of residual DDH after surgical intervention during childhood, and even less information about PAO after prior nonoperative treatment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We analyzed patients who had undergone PAO for DDH and asked: Did patients with prior childhood treatment (either operative or nonoperative) (1) improve less in modified Harris hip score (mHHS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) score, or WOMAC score; (2) demonstrate more severe preoperative deformities; and (3) receive less complete radiographic correction and have more frequent complications than did patients whose hips had not undergone prior treatment? We also asked: (4) Were there subgroup differences among patients with DDH treated nonoperatively versus operatively before PAO in these same functional and radiographic parameters? METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2020, a total of 90 PAOs were performed in 82 patients who had prior surgical or nonsurgical treatment. Of those, 3 patients (3 hips) with neuromuscular diseases were excluded, 4 patients (5 hips) were excluded for having received treatment after childhood, 7 hips that had undergone bilateral PAOs were excluded, and another 4 patients (4 hips) were lost to follow-up before the minimum study period of 2 years, leaving 71 patients (71 hips) for analysis (the previous treatment group). Among these, 32 patients had a history of previous surgery (the previous surgery group), and 39 patients had prior nonsurgical treatment (such as a Pavlik harness, closed reduction, spica casting) (the previous nonoperative group). During the same period, 1109 PAOs were performed in 956 patients who had no history of previous hip treatment. Following a 1:2 ratio, 142 patients (142 hips) were selected as the control group by matching for age (within 2 years difference), year of surgery (same year), and follow-up time (within 1-year difference). The patient characteristics for both the previous treatment group and the control group exhibited comparability, with mean ± SD follow-up durations of 49 ± 23 months and 48 ± 19 months, respectively. Within the previous 5 years, 3 patients (8%) in the previous nonoperative group, 4 patients (13%) in the previous surgery group, and 15 patients (11%) in the control group had not attended follow-up visits. We compared hip function and radiographic results between the two groups and performed a subgroup analysis between the previous surgery group and the previous nonoperative group. Hip function was assessed using the mHHS questionnaire, the WOMAC, and the iHOT-12 with attention to the minimum clinically important differences of these tools. The threshold values for clinically important improvement were 9.6 points, 13 points, and 16.1 points for the mHHS, iHOT-12, and WOMAC, respectively. Radiographic measurements included the lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), anterior center-edge angle (ACEA), Tönnis angle, acetabulum-head index, and acetabular wall index. We also evaluated Tönnis osteoarthritis grade and femoral head deformity. Occurrences of adverse radiographic events such as posterior column fracture, nonunion, stress fractures, insufficient coverage or overcoverage, acetabular protrusion, and progression of osteoarthritis were recorded. RESULTS: We found no clinically important differences in magnitude of improvement between the previous treatment group and the control group in terms of mHHS (mean ± SD 10 ± 12 versus 12 ± 12; p = 0.36), iHOT-12 (25 ± 18 versus 26 ± 19; p = 0.51), or WOMAC score (12 ± 12 versus 15 ± 19; p = 0.17). Preoperative deformity in the previous treatment group was more severe than in the control group (mean ± SD LCEA -1° ± 9° versus 5° ± 8°; ACEA -8° ± 18° versus 1° ± 14°; Tönnis angle 31° ± 7° versus 27° ± 7°; acetabulum-head index 56% ± 13% versus 61% ± 8%; all p < 0.001). In the previous treatment group, a higher percentage of patients exhibited flattening or irregularity of the femoral head compared with the control group (52% versus 9%; p < 0.001), and there was also a higher proportion of patients with Tönnis grade 1 or above (51% versus 42%; p < 0.001). Although there were still differences in LCEA, ACEA, and Tönnis angle between the two groups at the last follow-up, the differences were small, and the mean values were within the normal range. The previous treatment group had a higher risk of intraoperative posterior column fracture (14% and 5%; p = 0.02), insufficient acetabular coverage (20% and 8%; p = 0.01), and progression of osteoarthritis (17% and 8%; p = 0.04) compared with the control group. Subgroup analysis revealed no clinically important differences in magnitude of improvement between the previous surgery group and the previous nonoperative group in terms of mHHS (10 ± 14 versus 10 ± 11; p = 0.91), iHOT-12 (22 ± 21 versus 27 ± 14; p = 0.26), or WOMAC score (12 ± 14 versus 12 ± 11; p = 0.94). Apart from a higher proportion of patients who presented with arthritis (72% versus 34%; p = 0.01) and a smaller anterior wall index (11% ± 11% versus 20% ± 12%; p = 0.01) in the previous surgery group, all other preoperative radiographic parameters were consistent between the two groups. Additionally, the previous surgery group had a higher frequency of arthritis progression (28% versus 8%; p = 0.02), while the frequencies of other complications were similar between the two groups. Specifically, the frequencies of pubic ramus nonunion (22% versus 21%; p = 0.89), intraoperative posterior column fracture (19% versus 10%; p = 0.50), and insufficient acetabular coverage (25% versus 15%; p = 0.31) were high in both groups. CONCLUSION: We found no clinically important difference in the magnitude of improvement between patients who had childhood treatment and those who did not, but patients who had prior childhood treatment were more likely to experience serious complications, and radiographic correction in those patients was less complete. As in the case of patients who have had prior operative treatments, it is crucial not to overlook the unexpectedly severe deformity of residual DDH after previous nonoperative treatment and complications following PAO. Surgeons and patients alike should be aware of the potential for worse radiographic outcomes or an increased risk of complications when prior operative or nonoperative treatment has preceded PAO. Future studies might investigate optimal management strategies for this specific group of patients to improve outcomes and reduce complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

[Mid-term effectiveness of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with meniscus allograft transplantation].

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the mid-term effectiveness of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction combined with meniscus allograft transplantation. METHODS: A clinical data of 21 patients treated with arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and meniscus allograft transplantation and followed up more than 5 years between February 2007 and December 2014 was retrospectively analyzed. There were 12 males and 9 females, aged from 18 to 45 years, with an average age of 23.5 years. The cause of injury was sport sprain in 15 cases, falling in 4 cases, and traffic accident in 2 cases. The time from injury to operation ranged from 2 to 36 months, with an average of 12 months. Among them, 15 patients underwent previous meniscectomy, with an average interval of 1.6 years (range, 3 months to 6.5 years). All patients were primary ACL reconstruction. Preoperative anterior drawer test, Lachman test, and pivot shift test were positive. Lysholm score was 43.6±10.2. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was 60.50±14.06. Of the 21 patients, 10 were gradeⅠ-Ⅱcartilage injuries and 11 were grade Ⅲ cartilage injuries according to MRI. RESULTS: All patients were followed up 5.1-7.8 years, with an average of 5.5 years. There were 2 cases of numbness of lower extremity, 3 cases of slight exudation of incision, 2 cases of articular movement bounce, 5 cases of mild joint swelling and pain after exercise. At last follow-up, Lachman tests were negative in 18 cases and positive in 3 cases; anterior drawer tests were negative in 19 cases and positive in 2 cases; pivot shift tests were negative in all cases. Lysholm score was 84.5±16.5 and IKDC score was 85.25±4.60, which were significantly higher than those before operation ( P<0.01). The flexion and extension of the affected knee joint were (128±13) and (3±7)°, respectively, which were smaller than those of the healthy knee joint [(133±15), (0±5)°] ( P<0.01). The results of KT-1000 test showed that when knee flexion was 30 and 90°, tibial anterior displacement of affected side [(2.35±1.20), (1.60±1.15) mm] were not significantly different from those of healthy side [(1.20±1.10), (1.10±1.03) mm] ( P>0.01). MRI showed that the ACL graft was in normal position and meniscus survived well. Cartilage injuries were gradeⅠ-Ⅱ in 18 cases and grade Ⅲ in 3 cases. CONCLUSION: For patients with severe meniscus injury and ACL rupture, ACL reconstruction combined with meniscus allograft transplantation can restore the stability of the joint, recover the meniscus function which is conducive to the protection of articular cartilage and obtain satisfactory mid-term effectiveness.

Arthroscopic techniques and instruments for meniscal allograft transplantation using the bone bridge in trough method.

The aim of the current study was to investigate the construction of the bone bridge and tibial plateau under arthroscopy during meniscal allograft transplantation, in order to simplify and enhance the accuracy of bone bridge fixation intraoperatively. A traction line passed through the attachment of the anterior and posterior horns of the superior meniscus to the bone bridge was used to pull the bone bridge into the knee joint cavity and fix the anteroposterior horns of the meniscus. At the junction of the body of the meniscus and the posterior and anterior horns of the meniscus, a traction line was created at the anterior and posterior 1/3 of the meniscus to pull and fix the meniscus. Under the arthroscope, the aiming device was placed on the tibial plateau. The direction and width of the guide plate were identical to those of the bone trough of the tibial plateau. The bone tunnel was made using the guide needle and a 9-mm hollow drill, the piston rod was inserted, and the arch-shaped bone knife was inserted along with the piston rod to construct the 9-mm bone trough of the tibial plateau. The periphery of the meniscus was sutured to the joint capsule. These surgical techniques and instruments could standardize meniscal graft transplantation and avoid the incidence of surgical errors caused by mismatched size and shape of the bone bridge and bone trough. This would make the surgery more convenient, safe and accurate. The four-point fixation of the tibial plateau contributed to preventing the reversal of the meniscus during transplantation, and partially reconstructed the coronary ligament of the meniscal tibia, which probably enhanced the stability of the meniscus and minimized the risk of extrusion of the meniscal allograft. The bone bridge and bone trough of the tibial plateau were properly constructed under arthroscopy. Dynamic monitoring of surgical indications, explicit preoperative preparation and standardized surgical procedures could achieve high efficacy and excellent fixation effect during meniscal graft transplantation. The four-point fixation of the tibial plateau maintains and enhances the stability of the meniscal allograft, reduces the risk of meniscal extrusion and ensures the postoperative recovery of meniscal function.

Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar intramedullary nailing for tibal shaft fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of using tibial nails inserted by the suprapatellar approach with tibial nails inserted by the infrapatellar approach in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed (1966 to January 2018), EMBASE (1974 to January 2018), Cochrane Library (January 2018), Web of Science (1990 to January 2018). We also used Google Search Engine to search more potentially eligible studies until January 2018. The methodological qualities of included studies were assessed in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Cochrane Collaboration for Systematic Reviews. The statistical analysis all of included studies were performed by STATA 13.0 software. The outcomes were total blood loss, postoperative pain, range of motion (ROM), Lysholm knee score, fluoroscopy time, operation time, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Four RCTs published between 2015 and 2017 were selected in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between suprapatellar and infrapatellar approach surgery in total blood loss, postoperative pain, ROM, Lysholm knee scores, and fluoroscopy times. CONCLUSIONS: The suprapatellar approach for intramedullary nailing appears superior to the infrapatellar approach, with a reduction in total blood loss, improved postoperative pain, shorter fluoroscopy time, and better knee functionality outcomes. There was no increased incidence of postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Further research remains necessary.