4.3 Article

Radiological outcome analyses of transtrochanteric posterior rotational osteotomy for osteonecrosis of the femoral head at a mean follow-up of 11 years

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SCIENCE
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 277-283

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00776-012-0347-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [22000514]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24592266] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the radiological factors that correlated with progression of collapse and joint space narrowing after transtrochanteric posterior rotational osteotomy (PRO) for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. This study reviewed 51 hips in 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 11 years (5-20). The subjects included 29 males and 18 females with a mean age of 34 years (12-54) at the time of surgery. The 51 hips were divided into two groups based on the radiological outcome (group I: evidence of progression of collapse and/or joint space narrowing, group II: no evidence of either progression of collapse or joint space narrowing). Both clinical and radiological factors were analyzed by both univariate and multivariable analyses. Six hips were categorized as group I and 45 hips were categorized as group II. The postoperative intact ratio and preoperative stage were significantly correlated with the radiological outcome in both univariate (P < 0.0001, P = 0.006) and multivariate (P = 0.0014, P = 0.0039) analysis. The cutoff point for the postoperative intact ratio (the minimum ratio required to prevent both progression of collapse and joint space narrowing) was 36.8 %. The results of this study indicate that the postoperative intact ratio is one of the main influences on progression of collapse and/or joint space narrowing after PRO, and should be at least 36.8 %. An increased awareness of this critical ratio would be useful for planning the optimal use of this procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据