Is a periacetabular osteotomy as efficacious in retroversion as it is in dysplasia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an established treatment for acetabular dysplasia. It has also been proposed as a treatment for patients with acetabular retroversion. By reviewing a large cohort, we aimed to test whether outcome is equivalent for both types of morphology and identify factors that influenced outcome. Methods A single-centre, retrospective cohort study was performed on patients with acetabular retroversion treated with PAO (n = 62 hips). Acetabular retroversion was diagnosed clinically and radiologically (presence of a crossover sign, posterior wall sign, lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) between 20° and 35°). Outcomes were compared with a control group of patients undergoing PAO for dysplasia (LCEA < 20°; n = 86 hips). Femoral version was recorded. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, and reoperation rates were measured. Results The mean Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) preoperatively was 58.6 (SD 16.1) for the dysplastic hips and 52.5 (SD 12.7) for the retroverted hips (p = 0.145). Postoperatively, mean NAHS was 83.0 (SD 16.9) and 76.7 (SD 17.9) for dysplastic and retroverted hips respectively (p = 0.041). Difference between pre- and postoperative NAHS was slightly lower in the retroverted hips (18.3 (SD 22.1)) compared to the dysplastic hips (25.2 (SD 15.2); p = 0.230). At mean 3.5 years’ follow-up (SD 1.9), one hip needed a revision PAO and no hips were converted to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the retroversion group. In the control group, six hips (7.0%) were revised to THA. No differences in complications (p = 0.106) or in reoperation rate (p = 0.087) were seen. Negative predictors of outcome for patients undergoing surgery for retroversion were female sex, obesity, hypermobility, and severely decreased femoral anteversion. Conclusion A PAO is an effective surgical intervention for acetabular retroversion and produces similar improvements when used to treat dysplasia. Femoral version should be routinely assessed in these patients and when extremely low (< 0°), as an additional procedure to address this abnormality may be necessary. Females with signs of hypermobility should also be consulted of the likely guarded improvement. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):757–764.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".