Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trajectory for 66 patients treated with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and subsequent total hip arthroplasty: a follow-up study including 1378 hips from the Aarhus PAO database

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Outcomes for patients treated with PAO and subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA) remain unclear. We evaluated patient-reported outcomes among patients treated with PAO and subsequent THA and investigated differences in the number of additional surgical procedures after PAO among patients treated with PAO and subsequent THA and patients treated with PAO only.

Materials and methods

1378 hips underwent PAO and subsequently 66 hips were treated with THA. We evaluated the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and physical activity questions for the 66 hips. Additional surgery after PAO was identified through inquiry to the Danish National Patient Registry.

Results

13% undergoing PAO and subsequent THA reported a HOOS pain score ≤ 50 indicating a clinical failure. The risk difference for hip arthroscopy after PAO within 2 and 4 years was 14% (CI 5–23%) and 26% (CI 15–38%) in favor of hips treated with PAO only. Similarly, the risk difference for screw removal within 2 and 4 years was 19% (CI 8–29%) and 23% (CI 12–34%).

Conclusion

87% of patients undergoing PAO and subsequent THA had little or no hip pain. However, these patients received a high number of additional surgeries after PAO. Surgeons and patients may consider if additional surgery after PAO may be the first choice in a series of actions leading to conversion to THA.

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. Jakobsen SS, Overgaard S, Søballe K, Ovesen O, Mygind-Klavsen B, Dippmann CA et al (2018) The interface between periacetabular osteotomy, hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty in the young adult hip. EFORT Open Rev 3(7):408–417

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Wells J, Schoenecker P, Duncan S, Goss CW, Thomason K, Clohisy JC (2018) Intermediate-term hip survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of periacetabular osteotomy: the washington university experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(3):218–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thomas GE, Palmer AJ, Batra RN, Kiran A, Hart D, Spector T et al (2014) Subclinical deformities of the hip are significant predictors of radiographic osteoarthritis and joint replacement in women. A 20 year longitudinal cohort study. Osteoarthrs Cartil. 22(10):1504–10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mechlenburg I, Kold S, Rømer L, Søballe K (2007) Safe fixation with two acetabular screws after Ganz periacetabular osteotomy. Acta Orthop 78(3):344–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mechlenburg I, Hermansen F, Thillemann T, Søballe K (2013) Blood perfusion and bone formation before and after minimally invasive periacetabular osteotomy analysed by positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography. Int Orthop 37(5):789–794

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dahl LB, Dengsø K, Bang-Christiansen K, Petersen MM, Stürup J (2014) Clinical and radiological outcome after periacetabular osteotomy: a cross-sectional study of 127 hips operated on from 1999–2008. Hip Int 24(4):369–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beaulé PE, Dowding C, Parker G, Ryu JJ (2015) What factors predict improvements in outcomes scores and reoperations after the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):615–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Larsen JB, Mechlenburg I, Jakobsen SS, Thilleman TM, Søballe K (2020) 14-year hip survivorship after periacetabular osteotomy: a follow-up study on 1,385 hips. Acta Orthop 91(3):299–305

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Osawa Y, Hasegawa Y, Seki T, Takegami Y, Amano T, Ishiguro N (2018) Patient-reported outcomes in patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty after periacetabular osteotomy. J Orthop Sci 23(2):346–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Clohisy JC, Schutz AL, St John L, Schoenecker PL, Wright RW (2009) Periacetabular osteotomy: a systematic literature review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(8):2041–2052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartig-Andreasen C, Troelsen A, Thillemann TM, Søballe K (2012) What factors predict failure 4 to 12 years after periacetabular osteotomy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(11):2978–2987

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lerch TD, Steppacher SD, Liechti EF, Tannast M, Siebenrock KA (2017) One-third of hips after periacetabular osteotomy survive 30 years with good clinical results, no progression of arthritis, or conversion to THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(4):1154–1168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Clohisy JC, Ackerman J, Baca G, Baty J, Beaulé PE, Kim YJ et al (2017) Patient-reported outcomes of periacetabular osteotomy from the prospective ANCHOR cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(1):33–41

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wells J, Millis M, Kim YJ, Bulat E, Miller P, Matheney T (2017) Survivorship of the bernese periacetabular osteotomy: what factors are associated with long-term failure? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(2):396–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jakobsen SR, Mechlenburg I, Søballe K, Jakobsen SS (2018) What level of pain reduction can be expected up to two years after periacetabular osteotomy? A prospective cohort study of 146 patients. J Hip Preserv Surg 5(3):274–281

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Grammatopoulos G, Beaulé PE, Pascual-Garrido C, Nepple JJ, Clohisy JC (2018) Does severity of acetabular dysplasia influence clinical outcomes after periacetabular osteotomy?-A case-control study. J Arthroplasty 33(7s):S66-s70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boje J, Caspersen CK, Jakobsen SS, Søballe K, Mechlenburg I (2019) Are changes in pain associated with changes in quality of life and hip function 2 years after periacetabular osteotomy? A follow-up study of 321 patients. J Hip Preserv Surg 6(1):69–76

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Wells J, Schoenecker P, Petrie J, Thomason K, Goss CW, Clohisy JC (2019) Are complications after the bernese periacetabular osteotomy associated with subsequent outcomes scores? Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(5):1157–1163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Baqué F, Brown A, Matta J (2009) Total hip arthroplasty after periacetabular osteotomy. Orthopedics 32(6):399

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmidt M, Schmidt SA, Sandegaard JL, Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Sørensen HT (2015) The danish national patient registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 7:449–490

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Beyer NT, Kristian. Vinther, Anders. Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Danish Version of the Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 2.0 (HOOS 2.0) 2008 [Available from: http://www.koos.nu/HOOSdansk.pdf.

  22. Olsson SJ, Ekblom Ö, Andersson E, Börjesson M, Kallings LV (2016) Categorical answer modes provide superior validity to open answers when asking for level of physical activity: A cross-sectional study. Scand J Public Health 44(1):70–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Danish Health Authority (2018) Danskernes Sundhed - Den Nationale Sundhedsprofil 2017. Danish Health Authority

  24. Hartig-Andreasen C, Stilling M, Søballe K, Thillemann TM, Troelsen A (2014) Is cup positioning challenged in hips previously treated with periacetabular osteotomy? J Arthroplasty 29(4):763–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Matheney T, Kim YJ, Zurakowski D, Matero C, Millis M (2009) Intermediate to long-term results following the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy and predictors of clinical outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(9):2113–2123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study received no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark

    Sofie Bech-Jørgensen, Josefine Beck Larsen, Stig Storgaard Jakobsen & Inger Mechlenburg

  2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus N, Denmark

    Josefine Beck Larsen, Stig Storgaard Jakobsen & Inger Mechlenburg

  3. Orthopaedic Department, Hospital Pedro Hispano, Senhora da Hora, Portugal

    João Barroso

  4. Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus N, Denmark

    Inger Mechlenburg

Authors
  1. Sofie Bech-Jørgensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Josefine Beck Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Barroso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stig Storgaard Jakobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Inger Mechlenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SBJ, JBL, SSJ and IM designed the trial. JB performed the radiological measurements. SBJ collected the data. SBJ and JBL handled the data from the Danish National Patient Registry and SBJ performed statistical analyses. SBJ wrote the first draft, and JBL, JB, SSJ and IM revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofie Bech-Jørgensen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interests.

Ethical approval

According to Danish law, ethics committee approval was not required. The Danish Data Protection Agency approved the study (journal number: 1-16-02-677-20).

Informed consent

The patients gave informed consent to give report their data in the institutional database.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bech-Jørgensen, S., Larsen, J.B., Barroso, J. et al. Trajectory for 66 patients treated with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and subsequent total hip arthroplasty: a follow-up study including 1378 hips from the Aarhus PAO database. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 3743–3751 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04590-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04590-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation