Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1345 - 1350
1 Aug 2021
Czubak-Wrzosek M Nitek Z Sztwiertnia P Czubak J Grzelecki D Kowalczewski J Tyrakowski M

Aims. The aim of the study was to compare two methods of calculating pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT), either by using the femoral heads or acetabular domes to determine the bicoxofemoral axis, in patients with unilateral or bilateral primary hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. PI and PT were measured on standing lateral radiographs of the spine in two groups: 50 patients with unilateral (Group I) and 50 patients with bilateral hip OA (Group II), using the femoral heads or acetabular domes to define the bicoxofemoral axis. Agreement between the methods was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEm). The intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the two methods were analyzed on 31 radiographs in both groups to calculate ICC and SEm. Results. In both groups, excellent agreement between the two methods was obtained, with ICC of 0.99 and SEm 0.3° for Group I, and ICC 0.99 and SEm 0.4° for Group II. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent for both methods in both groups, with an ICC of at least 0.97 and SEm not exceeding 0.8°. The study also revealed excellent interobserver reliability for both methods in both groups, with ICC 0.99 and SEm 0.5° or less. Conclusion. Either the femoral heads or acetabular domes can be used to define the bicoxofemoral axis on the lateral standing radiographs of the spine for measuring PI and PT in patients with idiopathic unilateral or bilateral hip OA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1345–1350


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 7 | Pages 768 - 778
1 Jul 2019
Galea VP Rojanasopondist P Ingelsrud LH Rubash HE Bragdon C Huddleston III JI Malchau H Troelsen A

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to quantify the improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA), as well as the extent of any deterioration through the seven-year follow-up. The secondary aim was to identify predictors of PROM improvement and deterioration.

Patients and Methods

A total of 976 patients were enrolled into a prospective, international, multicentre study. Patients completed a battery of PROMs prior to THA, at three months post-THA, and at one, three, five, and seven-years post-THA. The Harris Hip Score (HHS), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS), the SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS), and the EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D) index were the primary outcomes. Longitudinal changes in each PROM were investigated by piece-wise linear mixed effects models. Clinically significant deterioration was defined for each patient as a decrease of one half of a standard deviation (group baseline).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 11_Supple_A | Pages 21 - 25
1 Nov 2013
Perry KI Trousdale RT Sierra RJ

The treatment of hip dysplasia should be customised for patients individually based on radiographic findings, patient age, and the patient’s overall articular cartilage status. In many patients, restoration of hip anatomy as close to normal as possible with a PAO is the treatment of choice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:21–5.