Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 6 | Pages 225 - 231
1 Jun 2016
Yeung M Kowalczuk M Simunovic N Ayeni OR

Objective. Hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip dysplasia is controversial in the orthopaedic community, as the outcome literature has been variable and inconclusive. We hypothesise that outcomes of hip arthroscopy may be diminished in the setting of hip dysplasia, but outcomes may be acceptable in milder or borderline cases of hip dysplasia. Methods. A systematic search was performed in duplicate for studies investigating the outcome of hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip dysplasia up to July 2015. Study parameters including sample size, definition of dysplasia, outcomes measures, and re-operation rates were obtained. Furthermore, the levels of evidence of studies were collected and quality assessment was performed. Results. The systematic review identified 18 studies investigating hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip dysplasia, with 889 included patients. Criteria used by the studies to diagnose hip dysplasia and borderline hip dysplasia included centre edge angle in 72% of studies but the range of angles were quite variable. Although 89% of studies reported improved post-operative outcome scores in the setting of hip dysplasia, revision rates were considerable (14.1%), with 9.6% requiring conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Conclusion. The available orthopaedic literature suggests that although improved outcomes are seen in hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip dysplasia, there is a high rate of re-operation and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Furthermore, the criteria used to define hip dysplasia vary considerably among published studies. Cite this article: M. Yeung, M. Kowalczuk, N. Simunovic, O. R. Ayeni. Hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip dysplasia: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:225–231. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.2000533


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 8 | Pages 935 - 942
1 Aug 2023
Bradley CS Verma Y Maddock CL Wedge JH Gargan MF Kelley SP

Aims

Brace treatment is the cornerstone of managing developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), yet there is a lack of evidence-based treatment protocols, which results in wide variations in practice. To resolve this, we have developed a comprehensive nonoperative treatment protocol conforming to published consensus principles, with well-defined a priori criteria for inclusion and successful treatment.

Methods

This was a single-centre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of a consecutive series of infants with ultrasound-confirmed DDH who underwent a comprehensive nonoperative brace management protocol in a unified multidisciplinary clinic between January 2012 and December 2016 with five-year follow-up radiographs. The radiological outcomes were acetabular index-lateral edge (AI-L), acetabular index-sourcil (AI-S), centre-edge angle (CEA), acetabular depth ratio (ADR), International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI) grade, and evidence of avascular necrosis (AVN). At five years, each hip was classified as normal (< 1 SD), borderline dysplastic (1 to 2 SDs), or dysplastic (> 2 SDs) based on validated radiological norm-referenced values.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 7 | Pages 744 - 750
1 Jul 2024
Saeed A Bradley CS Verma Y Kelley SP

Aims

Radiological residual acetabular dysplasia (RAD) has been reported in up to 30% of children who had successful brace treatment of infant developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Predicting those who will resolve and those who may need corrective surgery is important to optimize follow-up protocols. In this study we have aimed to identify the prevalence and predictors of RAD at two years and five years post-bracing.

Methods

This was a single-centre, prospective longitudinal cohort study of infants with DDH managed using a published, standardized Pavlik harness protocol between January 2012 and December 2016. RAD was measured at two years’ mean follow-up using acetabular index-lateral edge (AI-L) and acetabular index-sourcil (AI-S), and at five years using AI-L, AI-S, centre-edge angle (CEA), and acetabular depth ratio (ADR). Each hip was classified based on published normative values for normal, borderline (1 to 2 standard deviations (SDs)), or dysplastic (> 2 SDs) based on sex, age, and laterality.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 10 | Pages 629 - 638
20 Oct 2021
Hayashi S Hashimoto S Kuroda Y Nakano N Matsumoto T Ishida K Shibanuma N Kuroda R

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement with robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).

Methods

The study analyzed a consecutive series of 69 patients who underwent robotic-arm assisted THA between September 2018 and December 2019. Of these, 30 patients had DDH and were classified according to the Crowe type. Acetabular component alignment and 3D positions were measured using pre- and postoperative CT data. The absolute differences of cup alignment and 3D position were compared between DDH and non-DDH patients. Moreover, these differences were analyzed in relation to the severity of DDH. The discrepancy of leg length and combined offset compared with contralateral hip were measured.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 5 | Pages 242 - 249
1 May 2020
Bali K Smit K Ibrahim M Poitras S Wilkin G Galmiche R Belzile E Beaulé PE

Aims

The aim of the current study was to assess the reliability of the Ottawa classification for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia.

Methods

In all, 134 consecutive hips that underwent periacetabular osteotomy were categorized using a validated software (Hip2Norm) into four categories of normal, lateral/global, anterior, or posterior. A total of 74 cases were selected for reliability analysis, and these included 44 dysplastic and 30 normal hips. A group of six blinded fellowship-trained raters, provided with the classification system, looked at these radiographs at two separate timepoints to classify the hips using standard radiological measurements. Thereafter, a consensus meeting was held where a modified flow diagram was devised, before a third reading by four raters using a separate set of 74 radiographs took place.