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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |