Adult hip dysplasia AHD is a complex 3D pathology of lateral coverage, version and/or volume and is often associated with increased femoral anteversion. The Mckibbin index MI is the combination of acetabular version AV and femoral version FV and is used as a measure of anterior hip Stability/ Impingement(1). The Bernese Periacetabular osteotomy PAO is a powerful tool in treating AHD, but it does not address FV. De-rotational femoral osteotomies FO increases risk of complications, operative time and might condemn the patient to Secondary osteotomies to balance the gait. We aim to investigate the effect of MI and FV on PROMs in patients undergoing PAO only. 593 PAOs identified on the Local Hip preservation registry between 01/2013 and 7/2023. PAOs for retroversion, residual Perthes and those combined with FO were excluded. Patients with no available PROMS at 2 years were excluded. Independent variables were collected from E-notes and imaging including MI and FV. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed against preoperative iHot12, and iHot12 change at 2years. The mean FV was 18.86± 12.4 SD. Mean MI was 36.07, SD 15.36. Mean preop iHot12 score was 29.83 ± 17.38 SD. Mean change in iHot12 at 2 years was+36.47 ± 28.44 SD. Females and a higher BMI were statistically correlated to a lower preoperative iHot12. A lower preop iHot12 score and a higher preop AI were correlated to a bigger change in iHot12 at 2years with statistical significance. MI and FV were not found to have a statistically significant correlation with Outcome measures, An increased Mckibbin index and femoral anteversion were not correlated with worse outcomes at two years. PAO alone in the presence of increased femoral anteversion avoids risks associated with FO which can be performed later if required.
MCID and PASS are thresholds driven from PROMS to reflect clinical effectiveness. Statistical significance can be derived from a change in PROMS, whereas MCID and PASS reflect clinical significance. Its role has been increasingly used in the world of young adult hip surgery with several publications determining the thresholds for Femoro-acetabular impingement FAI. To our knowledge MCID and PASS for patient undergoing PAO for dysplasia has not been reported. 593 PAOs between 1/2013 and 7/2023 were extracted from the Northumbria Hip Preservation Registry. Patients with available PROMS at 1year and/or 2years were included. PAOs for retroversion, residual Perthes and those combined with FO were excluded. MCID was calculated using the distribution method 0.5SD of baseline score(1). PASS was calculated using anchor method, ROC analysis performed, and value picked maximizing Youden index. A Logistic Regression analysis was performed to determine which independent variables correlated with achieving MCID and PASS. The MCID threshold for iHOt12 was 8.6 with 83.4 and 86.3 % of patients achieved it at 1 and 2 years respectively. The PASS score at 1 and 2 year follow up was 43 and 44 respectively, with 72.6 and 75.2% achieving it at 1 and 2 year postop. At 2 years a Higher preop iHOT 12 was associated with not achieving MCID and PASS (p<0.05). Preop acetabular version was negatively correlated with achieving MCID and previous hip arthroscopy was negatively correlated with PASS. The % of patients achieving MCID and PASS mimics that of FAI surgery (2). The negative correlation with preop iHOT12 reaffirms the importance of patient selection. The negative correlation of hip arthroscopy highlights the importance of having a high index of suspicion for dysplasia prior to hip arthroscopy and poorer outcomes of patients with mixed CAM and dysplasia pathology.
Follow-up of arthroplasty varies widely across the UK. The aim of this NIHR-funded study was to employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations. It has been supported by BHS, BASK, BOA, ODEP and NJR. Four interconnected work packages have recently been completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from four national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document to guide appropriate follow-up care after primary hip and knee arthroplasty.
For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years At 10 years post hip and knee replacement, we recommend clinical, which may be virtual, and radiographic evaluation After 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required These recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up The 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years The term complex cases refer to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for replacement failure
Overarching statements
