4.2 Article

Curved periacetabular osteotomy via a novel intermuscular approach between the sartorius and iliac muscles

Journal

HIP INTERNATIONAL
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 642-648

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1120700018772047

Keywords

Intermuscular approach; novel approach; periacetabular osteotomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Herein, we describe and evaluate a curved periacetabular osteotomy (CPO) via an intermuscular approach (IM-CPO) between the sartorius and iliac muscles. Methods: Between January 2009 and January 2016, IM-CPO was performed in 17 joints (16 patients), and a traditional CPO was performed in 17 joints. The length of incision at wound closure, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, serum creatinine kinase (CK) level the day after surgery, correctional angle, walking ability assessed using the gait items of the Harris Hip Score (at 3 and 6 months after surgery), and perioperative complications were evaluated. Group differences were assessed using t-tests. Results: The IM-CPO and CPO groups did not differ in the mean operative time (130 minutes and 124 minutes, respectively), mean serum CK the day after surgery (349 IU/L and 425 IU/L, respectively), or mean correctional angle (24.9 degrees and 24.6 degrees, respectively). The mean incision length was significantly shorter in the IM-CPO group (8.3 cm) compared to that in the CPO group (9.5 cm). The mean walking ability was significantly higher in the IM-CPO group (24.2 points) compared to that in the CPO group (20.9 points) at 3 months after surgery, but not at 6 months after surgery (26.4 points and 24.9 points, respectively). No serious complications were observed in either group. Conclusion: In addition to demonstrating a similarly satisfactory correctional angle, IM-CPO is anticipated to enable early weight-bearing and recovery of walking ability. Thus, IM-CPO is considered a superior surgical technique.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available