EP1.43 Fixation of the mobile fragment in periacetabular osteotomy: a clinical study of two- vs. three-screw fixation with 4-week partial weight bearing

Clicks: 11
ID: 331174
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 #114 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 Aim Fixation of periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) has been a matter of interest since development of the procedure. Despite the stability of the construct, no consensus regarding the minimum number of screws needed for fixation is present. The aim of this study was to compare two-screw and three-screw fixation techniques in the clinical setting. Methods The study included a consecutive series of 100 hips that had undergone PAO surgery by a single surgeon between January 2022 and July 2023 with complete radiographic follow-up. The mobile fragment was fixed using three screws in 27 hips and two screws in 73 hips. Both groups did not significantly differ in any morphometric measure. Lateral center edge angle (LCEA), Acetabular index (AI), extrusion index (EI), anterior wall (AWI), and posterior wall index (PWI) were measured by two independent investigators preoperatively, immediately after surgery and at 1 year follow-up and interobserver agreement measured. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparison. Results No change of correction of > 4° was observed in any hip in both groups. Both groups did not significantly differ regarding any change in radiographic measure in ΔLCEA (1.09 ± 2.46 vs. 0.52 ± 3.11, p = 0.34), ΔEI (- 1.94% ± 2.97% vs. - 0.44% ± 5.75%, p = 0.25), ΔAI (- 0.10 ± 1.71° vs. 0.21 ± 1.83, p = 0.72), ΔAWI (0.25% ± 7.78% vs. 0.02% ± 12.05%, p = 0.57), ΔPWI (4.03% ± 9.94% vs. 3.43% ± 10.79%, p = 0.38). There was no difference in complications between groups. The rate of non-union at 1 year was lower in the two screw group, although not significant (7% vs. 17%, p = 0.38). Conclusion The results emphasize the inherent stability of the PAO construct and demonstrate that the use of two screws for fixation of the mobile fragment is sufficient in PAO surgery, provided that the fragment was fully mobilized during surgery and at least 50% bony contact on the iliac wing was achieved. Furthermore, a 4 week partial weight bearing regimen is also adequate during the healing phase.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220410878 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors med Chiara Heller, med Sufian S Ahmad, med Marco Haertlé, Justus Stamp, Quentin Karisch
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.227
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.227
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.