EP1.9 The literature remains heterogeneous in defining the ideal postoperative anatomy in patients with hip dysplasia undergoing periacetabular osteotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Clicks: 11
ID: 331083
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 #196 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 Purpose Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an established surgical method for treating DDH, BHD, and other acetabular deformities. Although tools for guided reorientation are increasingly available, current literature does not specify the ideal target morphology after PAO associated with substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Methods A literature review on PubMed/MEDLINE®, Embase®, and Cochrane® identified studies reporting on radiographic parameters and PROMs after PAO for DDH and BHD. Studies were excluded if previous surgeries or concomitant procedures were >25%. The review included 29 cohorts from 27 studies with 27 on DDH (2,728 hips, 2,514 patients; 97.4%) and 2 on BHD (74 hips, 71 patients; 2.6%). Study design and MINROS, patient demographics, radiographic findings, PROMs, and complications were assessed. A mixed-effect meta-analysis regression was performed, using the mean Δ (m)HHS as the effect size, weighted by the reciprocal of its variance. Different meta-regression models were used, including an anatomical and a mixed model. Covariates in the anatomical model were the mean postoperative lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) and acetabular index (AI), while the mixed-models included age and the proportion of females, combined with either the mean postoperative lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) or the acetabular index (AI). The optimal clinical goal to achieve after PAO was defined as the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for (m)HHS >23.0 points. Results Across all DDH studies, for patients who reached the (m)HHS SCB threshold of 23.0 points, the average postoperative LCEA was 29.2° ± 5.2, and the average AI was 7.0° ± 3.8. In contrast, patients who did not achieve the SCB had a mean LCEA of 33.0° ± 5.3 and a mean AI of 6.4° ± 3.5 (p > 0.05). As only one BHD study was eligible for further analysis, only DDH studies were included in the meta-analysis regression. Neither the anatomical model nor the mixed models showed a significant association with the change in (m)HHS. Discussion The current literature shows no significant association between postoperative acetabular anatomy, patient characteristics, and the achievement of SCB. In general, comparability of the studies was limited due to heterogeneity in reporting and methods.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220394005 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors PD Dr med Nils Becker, BS Lucas Kim, Mph Haley Cox, Om Jahagirdar, MD Renato Locks, DO, Faaos, Faoa Michael Leslie, Faaos Andrew Jimenez MD
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.193
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.193
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.