FP2.5 Predictors of Surgical Treatment in Borderline Acetabular Dysplasia: Results from the Multicenter ANCHOR ORBIT Study

Clicks: 14
ID: 331210
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 #142 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 ICLA02 - Demystifying the Deformed Hip: Practical Principles of Pelvic and Femoral Osteotomies, Auditorium A (BMCC Level 1), October 8, 2026, 10:30 - 12:30 Introduction Borderline acetabular dysplasia remains a major controversy in hip preservation surgery. Both isolated hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) appear to be the optimal treatment for distinct subgroups of patients, but limited information guides this decision-making. A multicenter prospective cohort study can provide data to guide surgical decision-making in the borderline population. The study's primary objective is to identify demographic, clinical, and radiographic predictors of significant instability requiring treatment with a PAO (with or without arthroscopy), instead of isolated hip arthroscopy, in patients with borderline acetabular dysplasia. Methods The ANCHOR ORBIT study is a multicenter prospective cohort involving 30 surgeons at 23 institutions. A total of 541 patients undergoing primary hip surgery with LCEA 18–25° were included. Treatment groups were defined as (1) isolated arthroscopy and (2) PAO (with or without arthroscopy). Treatment decision-making was at the discretion of the treating surgeon based on comprehensive assessment. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors of treatment selection. Results A total of 541 patients met inclusion (mean age 24.3 ± 7.9 years; 75.2% female), including 284 patients (52.5%) treated with isolated hip arthroscopy and 257 patients (47.5%) treated with PAO, of whom 119 (22.0%) underwent PAO alone and 138 (25.5%) underwent PAO with arthroscopy. The presence of significant instability driving the decision for PAO was independently associated with: smaller LCEA (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46–0.62, p<0.001), higher Beighton score (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01–1.31, p=0.038), increased internal rotation at 90° flexion (OR 1.06 per degree, 95% CI 1.03–1.10, p<0.001), lower alpha angle (OR 0.96 per degree, 95% CI 0.94–0.98, p<0.001), and younger age (OR 0.96 per year, 95% CI 0.92–1.01, p=0.09,). The final model demonstrated strong explanatory power (Nagelkerke R2=0.68). Conclusion In this large multicenter cohort, surgical treatment for borderline acetabular dysplasia was nearly evenly divided between isolated arthroscopy and PAO (with or without arthroscopy). Clinical and radiographic factors strongly influenced treatment choice: LCEA, hip internal rotation, alpha angle, age, and ligamentous laxity independently predicted PAO. These findings provide multicenter evidence that both structural and patient-specific factors drive surgical decision-making in this controversial population.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220416388 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jeffrey J. Nepple, Abhav Garde, Anchor Study Group, John C. F. Clohisy
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.013
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.013
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.