Cargando…

Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Paprosky’s classification is currently the most used classification for periacetabular bone defects but its validity and reliability are widely discussed in literature. Aim of this study was to introduce a new CT-based Acetabular Revision Algorithm (CT-ARA) and to evaluate its va...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aprato, Alessandro, Olivero, Matteo, Di Benedetto, Paolo, Massè, Alessandro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Mattioli 1885 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33559630
http://dx.doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i14-S.10999
_version_ 1783662724028301312
author Aprato, Alessandro
Olivero, Matteo
Di Benedetto, Paolo
Massè, Alessandro
author_facet Aprato, Alessandro
Olivero, Matteo
Di Benedetto, Paolo
Massè, Alessandro
author_sort Aprato, Alessandro
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIM: Paprosky’s classification is currently the most used classification for periacetabular bone defects but its validity and reliability are widely discussed in literature. Aim of this study was to introduce a new CT-based Acetabular Revision Algorithm (CT-ARA) and to evaluate its validity. The CT-ARA is based on the integrity of five anatomical structures that support the acetabulum. Classification’s groups are defined by the deficiency of one or more of these structures, treatment is based on those groups. METHODS: In 105 patients the validity of the CT-ARA was retrospectively evaluated using preoperative X-rays, CT-scan and surgery reports. The surgical indications suggested by Paprosky’s algorithm and by CT-ARA were compared with the final surgical technique. Patients were divided into two groups according to time of surgery. RESULTS: We reported concordance of indications in 56,2% of cases with the Paprosky’s algorithm and in 63,8% of cases with the CT-ARA. Analysing only the most recent surgeries (group 2), we reported even higher difference of concordance (67,3% Paprosky’s algorithm and 83,7% CT-ARA). The concordance of the CT-ARA among Group 1 and Group 2 resulted significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: the CT-ARA may be a useful tool for the preoperative decision-making process and showed more correlation with performed surgery compared to the Paprosky’s algorithm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7944694
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Mattioli 1885
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79446942021-03-10 Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions Aprato, Alessandro Olivero, Matteo Di Benedetto, Paolo Massè, Alessandro Acta Biomed Original Article BACKGROUND AND AIM: Paprosky’s classification is currently the most used classification for periacetabular bone defects but its validity and reliability are widely discussed in literature. Aim of this study was to introduce a new CT-based Acetabular Revision Algorithm (CT-ARA) and to evaluate its validity. The CT-ARA is based on the integrity of five anatomical structures that support the acetabulum. Classification’s groups are defined by the deficiency of one or more of these structures, treatment is based on those groups. METHODS: In 105 patients the validity of the CT-ARA was retrospectively evaluated using preoperative X-rays, CT-scan and surgery reports. The surgical indications suggested by Paprosky’s algorithm and by CT-ARA were compared with the final surgical technique. Patients were divided into two groups according to time of surgery. RESULTS: We reported concordance of indications in 56,2% of cases with the Paprosky’s algorithm and in 63,8% of cases with the CT-ARA. Analysing only the most recent surgeries (group 2), we reported even higher difference of concordance (67,3% Paprosky’s algorithm and 83,7% CT-ARA). The concordance of the CT-ARA among Group 1 and Group 2 resulted significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: the CT-ARA may be a useful tool for the preoperative decision-making process and showed more correlation with performed surgery compared to the Paprosky’s algorithm. Mattioli 1885 2020 2020-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7944694/ /pubmed/33559630 http://dx.doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i14-S.10999 Text en Copyright: © 2020 ACTA BIO MEDICA SOCIETY OF MEDICINE AND NATURAL SCIENCES OF PARMA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
spellingShingle Original Article
Aprato, Alessandro
Olivero, Matteo
Di Benedetto, Paolo
Massè, Alessandro
Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions
title Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions
title_full Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions
title_fullStr Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions
title_full_unstemmed Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions
title_short Decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions
title_sort decision/therapeutic algorithm for acetabular revisions
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33559630
http://dx.doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i14-S.10999
work_keys_str_mv AT apratoalessandro decisiontherapeuticalgorithmforacetabularrevisions
AT oliveromatteo decisiontherapeuticalgorithmforacetabularrevisions
AT dibenedettopaolo decisiontherapeuticalgorithmforacetabularrevisions
AT massealessandro decisiontherapeuticalgorithmforacetabularrevisions