Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 92-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 293 - 293
1 May 2010
Aljinovic A Bicanic G Delimar D
Full Access

Introduction: Operative treatment of secondary osteoarthritis due to congenital hip disease (CHD) in adults presents a challenging issue. Various classifications have been proposed for congenital hip disease in search for the best treatment option. Aim of this prospective study is to find measurements important in preoperative planning and their correlation with postoperative results.

Materials and Methods: We have included 64 patients (70 hips) with CHD consecutively scheduled for operation. Preoperatively congenital hip disease was classified according to Crowe, Hartofilakidis and Eftekhar and center of rotation was determined using Ranawat’s method. Distance between ideal and actual center rotation was measured. Further, distance between medial acetabular wall and medial pelvic rim (medial bone bulk) in the line of ideal center of rotation was measured. Another measurement was distance between ideal acetabular roof point and medial pelvic rim. On the postoperative radiographs centre of the femoral head was recorded.

Correlation between Crowe, Hartofilakidis and Eftekhar classifications with distance between ideal and postoperative center rotation and medial bone bulk were calculated using Pearson correlation. Correlation was also analyzed using information about distance between ideal acetabular roof point and medial pelvic rim.

Results: Data analysis showed that there is the strongest connection between degree of CHD determined using Eftaker classification and distance between ideal and actual rotation center (r=0.417, p=0.011). Crowe and Hartofilakidis classifications also shows statistically significant connection, however not that strong (r= 0.384, p=0.021 for Crowe and r=0.373, p=0.025 for Hartofilakidis). Eftaker classification shows the strongest correlation with medial bone bulk r=0.425, a p=0.010. Similar is Crowe classification (r=0.341, p=0.042), while there is no statistically significant correlation with Hartofilakidis classification. Results also shows that when there is higher degree of congenital hip disease there is thinner bone bulk in line of ideal acetabular roof (for Crowe r= −0.360, p=0.031, for Hartofilakidis r= −0.354, p=0.34).

Conclusion: Results show that severity of dysplasia according to Crowe, Hartofilakidis and Eftekhar correlates with postoperative position of rotation center. Eftekhar classification gives the best insight to how much medial bone bulk is available. For bone bulk on the acetabular roof predictions can be made using both Crowe and Hartofilakidis system. However, one classification still does not provide with all information we found important for correct endoprothesis placement in relation to center of rotation especially about acetabular depth, and bone mass on the medial acetabular wall and acetabular roof.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 88-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 136 - 136
1 Mar 2006
Cicak N Klobucar H Delimar D
Full Access

Aims: The aim of this study is to compare open Bankart procedure and arthroscopic extra-articular stabilization of the shoulder in patients with anterior instability.

Material and Methods: 236 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were treated surgically between 1992 and 2002. Open Bankart procedure was performed in 177 patients, mean age 29 years (range 17–67), and arthroscopic extra-articular stabilization in 59 patients, mean age 27 years (range 14–45). Single surgeon was performed all surgery. Follow-up for open surgery was from 2 to10 years, and for arthroscopic stabilization from 12 to 60 months.

Results: Constant score for Bankart procedure was 90 points and for arthroscopic stabilization was 96 points. Five patients (2.8%) had re-dislocation after open procedure and three patients (5,1%) after arthroscopic stabilization.

Conclusion: Open Bankart is more reliable than arthroscopic stabilisation of the shoulder. However, arthroscopic stabilisation has more advantages; better ROM, better function and cosmesis, lesser morbidity and small violation of normal anatomy.