The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential?
Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding t...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Novais, Eduardo N. [verfasserIn] Kim, Young-Jo [verfasserIn] Carry, Patrick M. [verfasserIn] Millis, Michael B. [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2014 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Clinical orthopaedics and related research - Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963, 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:472 ; year:2014 ; number:10 ; day:23 ; month:07 ; pages:3142-3149 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
SPR023717165 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | SPR023717165 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230519143535.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 201006s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)SPR023717165 | ||
035 | |a (SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q ASE |
084 | |a 44.83 |2 bkl | ||
100 | 1 | |a Novais, Eduardo N. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 4 | |a The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? |
264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
520 | |a Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Acetabular Dysplasia |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Direct Head |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Femoroacetabular Impingement |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Direct Anterior Approach |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Tendon Attachment |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
700 | 1 | |a Kim, Young-Jo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Carry, Patrick M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Millis, Michael B. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Clinical orthopaedics and related research |d Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963 |g 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 |w (DE-627)316019062 |w (DE-600)2018318-5 |x 1528-1132 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:472 |g year:2014 |g number:10 |g day:23 |g month:07 |g pages:3142-3149 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_138 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_150 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_152 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_187 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2026 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2031 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2034 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2039 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2059 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2064 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2065 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2068 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2070 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2086 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2106 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2108 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2116 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2118 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2119 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2122 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2129 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2143 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2144 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2147 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2148 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2152 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2188 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2232 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4246 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4328 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4333 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
936 | b | k | |a 44.83 |q ASE |
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 472 |j 2014 |e 10 |b 23 |c 07 |h 3142-3149 |
author_variant |
e n n en enn y j k yjk p m c pm pmc m b m mb mbm |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:15281132:2014----::hbreeeictblrsetmitascinfhrcu |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2014 |
bklnumber |
44.83 |
publishDate |
2014 |
allfields |
10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 doi (DE-627)SPR023717165 (SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.83 bkl Novais, Eduardo N. verfasserin aut The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Acetabular Dysplasia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Head (dpeaa)DE-He213 Femoroacetabular Impingement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Anterior Approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tendon Attachment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kim, Young-Jo verfasserin aut Carry, Patrick M. verfasserin aut Millis, Michael B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical orthopaedics and related research Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 (DE-627)316019062 (DE-600)2018318-5 1528-1132 nnns volume:472 year:2014 number:10 day:23 month:07 pages:3142-3149 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4328 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.83 ASE AR 472 2014 10 23 07 3142-3149 |
spelling |
10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 doi (DE-627)SPR023717165 (SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.83 bkl Novais, Eduardo N. verfasserin aut The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Acetabular Dysplasia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Head (dpeaa)DE-He213 Femoroacetabular Impingement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Anterior Approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tendon Attachment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kim, Young-Jo verfasserin aut Carry, Patrick M. verfasserin aut Millis, Michael B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical orthopaedics and related research Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 (DE-627)316019062 (DE-600)2018318-5 1528-1132 nnns volume:472 year:2014 number:10 day:23 month:07 pages:3142-3149 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4328 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.83 ASE AR 472 2014 10 23 07 3142-3149 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 doi (DE-627)SPR023717165 (SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.83 bkl Novais, Eduardo N. verfasserin aut The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Acetabular Dysplasia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Head (dpeaa)DE-He213 Femoroacetabular Impingement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Anterior Approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tendon Attachment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kim, Young-Jo verfasserin aut Carry, Patrick M. verfasserin aut Millis, Michael B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical orthopaedics and related research Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 (DE-627)316019062 (DE-600)2018318-5 1528-1132 nnns volume:472 year:2014 number:10 day:23 month:07 pages:3142-3149 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4328 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.83 ASE AR 472 2014 10 23 07 3142-3149 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 doi (DE-627)SPR023717165 (SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.83 bkl Novais, Eduardo N. verfasserin aut The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Acetabular Dysplasia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Head (dpeaa)DE-He213 Femoroacetabular Impingement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Anterior Approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tendon Attachment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kim, Young-Jo verfasserin aut Carry, Patrick M. verfasserin aut Millis, Michael B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical orthopaedics and related research Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 (DE-627)316019062 (DE-600)2018318-5 1528-1132 nnns volume:472 year:2014 number:10 day:23 month:07 pages:3142-3149 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4328 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.83 ASE AR 472 2014 10 23 07 3142-3149 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 doi (DE-627)SPR023717165 (SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.83 bkl Novais, Eduardo N. verfasserin aut The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Acetabular Dysplasia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Head (dpeaa)DE-He213 Femoroacetabular Impingement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Anterior Approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tendon Attachment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kim, Young-Jo verfasserin aut Carry, Patrick M. verfasserin aut Millis, Michael B. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical orthopaedics and related research Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 (DE-627)316019062 (DE-600)2018318-5 1528-1132 nnns volume:472 year:2014 number:10 day:23 month:07 pages:3142-3149 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4328 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.83 ASE AR 472 2014 10 23 07 3142-3149 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in Clinical orthopaedics and related research 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 volume:472 year:2014 number:10 day:23 month:07 pages:3142-3149 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in Clinical orthopaedics and related research 472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149 volume:472 year:2014 number:10 day:23 month:07 pages:3142-3149 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Acetabular Dysplasia Direct Head Femoroacetabular Impingement Direct Anterior Approach Tendon Attachment |
dewey-raw |
610 |
isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
container_title |
Clinical orthopaedics and related research |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Novais, Eduardo N. @@aut@@ Kim, Young-Jo @@aut@@ Carry, Patrick M. @@aut@@ Millis, Michael B. @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2014-07-23T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
316019062 |
dewey-sort |
3610 |
id |
SPR023717165 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR023717165</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519143535.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR023717165</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.83</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Novais, Eduardo N.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Acetabular Dysplasia</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Direct Head</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Femoroacetabular Impingement</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Direct Anterior Approach</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tendon Attachment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kim, Young-Jo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carry, Patrick M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Millis, Michael B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clinical orthopaedics and related research</subfield><subfield code="d">Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963</subfield><subfield code="g">472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)316019062</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2018318-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1528-1132</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:472</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:10</subfield><subfield code="g">day:23</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3142-3149</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2039</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2116</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4328</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.83</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">472</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">10</subfield><subfield code="b">23</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">3142-3149</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Novais, Eduardo N. |
spellingShingle |
Novais, Eduardo N. ddc 610 bkl 44.83 misc Acetabular Dysplasia misc Direct Head misc Femoroacetabular Impingement misc Direct Anterior Approach misc Tendon Attachment The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? |
authorStr |
Novais, Eduardo N. |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)316019062 |
format |
electronic Article |
dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
collection |
springer |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
1528-1132 |
topic_title |
610 ASE 44.83 bkl The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? Acetabular Dysplasia (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Head (dpeaa)DE-He213 Femoroacetabular Impingement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct Anterior Approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tendon Attachment (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
topic |
ddc 610 bkl 44.83 misc Acetabular Dysplasia misc Direct Head misc Femoroacetabular Impingement misc Direct Anterior Approach misc Tendon Attachment |
topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 bkl 44.83 misc Acetabular Dysplasia misc Direct Head misc Femoroacetabular Impingement misc Direct Anterior Approach misc Tendon Attachment |
topic_browse |
ddc 610 bkl 44.83 misc Acetabular Dysplasia misc Direct Head misc Femoroacetabular Impingement misc Direct Anterior Approach misc Tendon Attachment |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Clinical orthopaedics and related research |
hierarchy_parent_id |
316019062 |
dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
hierarchy_top_title |
Clinical orthopaedics and related research |
isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)316019062 (DE-600)2018318-5 |
title |
The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR023717165 (SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e |
title_full |
The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? |
author_sort |
Novais, Eduardo N. |
journal |
Clinical orthopaedics and related research |
journalStr |
Clinical orthopaedics and related research |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
false |
dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2014 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
container_start_page |
3142 |
author_browse |
Novais, Eduardo N. Kim, Young-Jo Carry, Patrick M. Millis, Michael B. |
container_volume |
472 |
class |
610 ASE 44.83 bkl |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Novais, Eduardo N. |
doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 |
dewey-full |
610 |
author2-role |
verfasserin |
title_sort |
bernese periacetabular osteotomy: is transection of the rectus femoris tendon essential? |
title_auth |
The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? |
abstract |
Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. |
abstractGer |
Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4328 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
10 |
title_short |
The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential? |
url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Kim, Young-Jo Carry, Patrick M. Millis, Michael B. |
author2Str |
Kim, Young-Jo Carry, Patrick M. Millis, Michael B. |
ppnlink |
316019062 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
false |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9 |
up_date |
2024-07-03T20:51:40.263Z |
_version_ |
1803592558463418368 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR023717165</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519143535.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR023717165</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s11999-014-3720-9-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.83</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Novais, Eduardo N.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: Is Transection of the Rectus Femoris Tendon Essential?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) traditionally is performed using the iliofemoral or the ilioinguinal approach with transection of the rectus femoris tendon attachments. Although a rectus-preserving approach has been developed, there is limited direct comparison data regarding the surgical safety, radiographic correction, and improvement in hip pain and function between the rectus-preserving and the classic approaches. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were to determine whether preserving the rectus femoris tendon attachment would (1) reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of surgery; (2) improve Harris hip scores (HHS); (3) decrease the rate of complications; and (4) affect the radiographic correction when compared with the classic approach. Methods A retrospective matched cohort study was used to compare the endpoints listed above after PAO using a rectus-preserving approach versus the classic approach. Operative blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit, duration of surgery, HHS, and postoperative complications were recorded for the two groups. Pelvic radiographs were reviewed for measurement of the lateral center-edge angle, anterior center-edge angle, and Tönnis acetabular inclination angle. A total of 64 patients were included (32 in each group). Followup was at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 20 months; range, 13–44 months). Results Blood loss (p = 0.2405), hematocrit change (p = 0.3277), and operative time (p = 0.3960) were similar between groups. At latest followup, the HHS improved in the rectus-preserving (mean improvement, 25; 95% CI, 21–29; p < 0.0001) and control groups (mean improvement, 21; 95% CI, 17–25; p < 0.0001) with no difference in HHS improvement between the groups (mean difference, 4.3; 95% CI, −1.6 to 10.1; p = 0.1523). The complication rate was 12.5% (four of 32) in the rectus-preserving group and 25% (eight of 32) in the classic approach groups, respectively (p = 0.2002). The rectus-preserving approach allowed for similar lateral center-edge angle (p = 0.4463), anterior center-edge angle (p = 0.0936), and Tönnis angle (p = 0.7953) improvement when compared with the classic approach. Conclusions The rectus-preserving approach for PAO is as safe and effective as the classic approach to achieve radiographic correction and HHS improvement at minimum 1 year. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the rectus-preserving approach allows for improvement in functional recovery including hip flexion strength. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Acetabular Dysplasia</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Direct Head</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Femoroacetabular Impingement</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Direct Anterior Approach</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tendon Attachment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kim, Young-Jo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carry, Patrick M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Millis, Michael B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clinical orthopaedics and related research</subfield><subfield code="d">Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, 1963</subfield><subfield code="g">472(2014), 10 vom: 23. Juli, Seite 3142-3149</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)316019062</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2018318-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1528-1132</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:472</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:10</subfield><subfield code="g">day:23</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3142-3149</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3720-9</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2039</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2116</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4328</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.83</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">472</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">10</subfield><subfield code="b">23</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">3142-3149</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.399864 |