Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Complications and patient satisfaction after periacetabular pelvic osteotomy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is a well established method to treat hip dysplasia in the adult. There is, however, a lack of information on the subjective outcome of patients with complications after PAO. The purpose of this study was therefore to assess the influence of complications on the patients’ post-operative wellbeing and function: 60 PAOs on 50 patients were investigated retrospectively after a mean follow-up of 7.4 years. The patients’ self-reported assessment of health and function was evaluated by the Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) questionnaires at last follow-up. Forty healthy persons served as a control group. Of the 60 interventions 13 had no complications. Minor complications occurred in 25 (41%) and in 22 (37%) at least one major complication occurred. SF-36 summary measure was 76.4 for PAO patients and 90.3 for the control group. Mean WOMAC score was 25.1. Patients with major complications had a similar subjective outcome as patients with minor or without complications, but persistent dysaesthesia due to lateral femoral cutaneous nerve dysfunction led to a worse subjective function. Lesions of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve have much greater influence on patients’ self-assessed functional outcome after PAO than previously reported and greater attention has to be given to this supposedly minor complication.

Résumé

L’ostéotomie péri acétabulaire (PAO) est aujourd’hui une méthode de traitement de la dysplasie de la hanche chez l’adulte néanmoins un certain nombre d’études montre qu’il existe des complications post-opératoires. Le but de ce travail est d’évaluer ces complications et la fonction des patients. 60 PAO chez 50 patients ont été ainsi analysées de façon rétrospectives après un recul moyen de 7.4 ans. Une dernière évaluation clinique et fonctionnelle a été réalisée selon les questionnaires SF-36 et WOMAC, 40 personnes non opérées servant de groupe contrôle. Sur 60 interventions, 13 n’ont pas entraînée de complication. Des complications mineures sont survenues chez 25 patients (41%) et au moins une complication majeure chez 22 patients (37%). Le score de WOMAC a été mesuré en moyenne à 25.1. Les patients ayant présenté des complications majeures et ceux ayant présenté des complications mineures ont le même résultat subjectif et la même analyse de leur intervention avec une fonction qu’ils considèrent objectivement comme mauvaise, les lésions du nerf fémoro-cutanées ont donc une grande influence sur le devenir fonctionnel de ces patients, il est nécessaire de faire très attention à sa préservation pour éviter ce type de complications lors de l’ostéotomie péri acétabulaire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. van Bergayk AB, Garbuz DS (2002) Quality of life and sports-specific outcomes after Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:339–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brazier J, Harper R, Jones N, O’Cathain A, Thomas K, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Crockarell J, Trousdale RT, Cabanela ME, Berry DJ (1999) Early experience and results with the periacetabular osteotomy. The Mayo clinic experience. Clin Orthop 363:45–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Davey JP, Santore RF (1999) Complications of periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop 363:33–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ganz R, Klaue K, Vinh TS, Mast JW (1988) A new periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of hip dysplasias. Technique and results. Clin Orthop 232:26–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Albert TJ, Balderston RA, Eng K (1997) Relationship of total hip arthroplasty outcomes to other orthopaedic procedures. Clin Orthop 344:88–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hussell JG, Mast JW, Mayo KA, Howie DW, Ganz R (1999) A comparison of different surgical approaches for the periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop 363:64–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kralj M, Mavcic B, Antolic V, Iglic A, Kralj-Iglic V (2005) The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy: clinical, radiographic and mechanical 7–15-year follow-up of 26 hips. Acta Orthop Scand 76:833–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Leunig M, Ganz R (1998) Berner periazetabuläre Osteotomie. Orthopade 27:743–750

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lieberman JR, Hawker G, Wright JG (2001) Hip function in patients >55 years old: population reference values. J Arthroplasty 16:901–904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Matta JM, Stover MD, Siebenrock K (1999) Periacetabular osteotomy through the Smith-Petersen approach. Clin Orthop 363:21–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Murphy SB, Ganz R, Muller ME (1995) The prognosis in untreated dysplasia of the hip. A study of radiographic factors that predict the outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:985–989

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Murphy S, Deshmukh R (2002) Periacetabular osteotomy. Preoperative radiographic predictors of outcome. Clin Orthop 405:168–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Murphy SB, Millis MB (1999) Periacetabular osteotomy without abductor dissection using direct anterior exposure. Clin Orthop 364:92–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pogliacomi F, Stark A, Wallenstein R (2005) Periacetabular osteotomy. Good pain relief in symptomatic hip dysplasia, 32 patients followed for 4 years. Acta Orthop Scand 76:67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shields RK, Enloe LJ, Leo KC (1999) Health related quality of life in patients with total hip or knee replacement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:572–579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Siebenrock KA, Leunig M, Ganz R (2001) Periacetabular osteotomy: the Bernese experience. Instr Course Lect 50:239–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Siebenrock KA, Schoeniger R, Ganz R (2003) Anterior femoro-acetabular impingement due to acetabular retroversion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:278–286

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Siebenrock KA, Schöll E, Lottenbach M, Ganz R (1999) Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop 363:9–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Dich W, Theiler R (1998) Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario und McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesne-Algofunctional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartil 6:79–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Dich W, Theiler R (1996) Evaluation einer deutschen Version des WOMAC (Western Ontario und McMaster Universities) Arthroseindex. Z Rheumatol 55:40–49

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tönnis D (1987) Congenital dysplasia and dislocation of the hip in children and adults. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  24. Trumble SJ, Mayo KA, Mast JW (1999) The periacetabular osteotomy. Minimum 2 year followup in more than 100 hips. Clin Orthop 363:54–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wiberg G (1939) Studies of dysplastic acetabulum and congenital subluxation of the hip with special reference to the complication of osteoarthritis. Acta Chir Scand 83(58):7–38

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Department of Orthopaedics, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    R. Biedermann, A. Gabriel, R. Wachter, M. Krismer & H. Behensky

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Royal Children’s Hospital, Flemington Road, 3052, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    L. Donnan

Authors
  1. R. Biedermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Donnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Gabriel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Wachter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Krismer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. Behensky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Biedermann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biedermann, R., Donnan, L., Gabriel, A. et al. Complications and patient satisfaction after periacetabular pelvic osteotomy. International Orthopaedics (SICO 32, 611–617 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0372-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0372-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation