EP1.66 The Treatment of Acetabular Retroversion: Hip Arthroscopy or Periacetabular Osteotomy? A systematic review on diagnostic criteria and outcomes

Clicks: 10
ID: 331079
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #179 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Acetabular retroversion (ARV) causes femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). ARV is managed by anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) or hip arthroscopy (HA), though their comparative effectiveness is unknown. Methods A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Data included ARV diagnostic criteria, patient-/physician-reported outcome measures (PROMs), concurrent procedures, complications, and further surgeries. Study quality was assessed using MINORS and Coleman Methodology Score (CMS). Results Among 12 HA studies (1,060 patients), 78% (822/1,060) underwent surgery for indications other than ARV; 60.3% (639/1,060) had all 3 radiographic ARV signs, with 83.8% undergoing rim-trimming. Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) was the most common PROM; 68.9% achieved a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS). Complication rates were 1.9%, with 1.2% converting to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 5.3% undergoing revision HA at 5 years. Among 7 PAO studies (312 patients), all surgeries targeted ARV exclusively; 74.4% (232/312) demonstrated all radiographic signs. Merle d’Aubigne-Postel (MdAP) hip score was the most frequent PROM with 89.4% achieving good-excellent scores. Complication rates were 13% (27/201), with 0.6% converting to THA at 10 years. Four PAO studies (4/7) and six HA studies (6/12) met high-quality MINORS criteria. No studies directly compared HA to PAO. Conclusion There is marked variation in the definition of ARV and its surgical management in the current literature. While HA provides good mid-term symptomatic relief, the patients were less likely to have all three signs of acetabular retroversion, compared to PAO patients. Therefore, current evidence on the surgical management of ARV should be interpreted with caution.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220393189 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Kartik Logishetty, Manuel Mazzoleni, Srikar Namireddy, Alastair Dick, Jonathan Hutt, Filipo Randelli, Johan Witt
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.250
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.250
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.