The prevalence and risk factors for delayed union of the superior pubic ramus at one year after curved periacetabular osteotomy: its risk factor and outcome
- 145 Downloads
Curved periacetabular osteotomy (CPO) has been developed for the treatment of acetabular dysplasia. While several studies have reported its good clinical results, the complications of CPO include delayed union and nonunion of the superior pubic ramus. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence of delayed union of the pubis one year after CPO, and to determine the risk factors for this complication.
The study examined 113 hips that underwent CPO between 2008 and 2012. Delayed union was assessed based on the anteroposterior radiography one year after CPO. A superior pubic ramus union group (U group) and a delayed union group (D group) were retrospectively compared regarding patient characteristics, clinical evaluations, and radiographic parameters.
Delayed union rate was 16.8%. The D group contained a significantly greater proportion of smokers (p < 0.001). The gap at the pubic osteotomy site on CT coronal images was significantly larger in the D group (p < 0.001), and the cut-off value for the risk of nonunion was larger than 5.1 mm. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that smoking (OR 10.7, 95% CI 2.1–55.4) and a gap at the superior pubic ramus >5.1 mm (OR 16.5, 95% CI 3.7–73.7) were significantly associated with delayed union as independent risk factors.
The prevalence of delayed union one year after CPO was 16.8%. Smoking and a gap larger than 5.1 mm at the pubic osteotomy site are risk factors for delayed union after CPO.
KeywordsPeriacetabular osteotomy Complication Delayed union and nonunion Superior pubic ramus Risk factor
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
- 2.Nakamura S, Ninomiya S, Nakamura T (1989) Primary osteoarthritis of the hip joint in Japan. Clin Orthop Relat Res 241:190–196Google Scholar
- 4.Ganz R, Klaue K, Vinh TS, Mast JW (1988) A new periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of hip dysplasias: technique and preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 232:26–36Google Scholar
- 7.Matta JM, Stover MD, Siebenrock K (1999) Periacetabular osteotomy through the smith-Petersen approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res 363:21–32Google Scholar
- 17.Wiberg G (1939) The anatomy and roentgenographic appearance of a normal hip joint. Acta Chir Scand 83(Suppl 58):7–38Google Scholar