Table 2.
Surgical techniques and outcomes reported from studies evaluating rotational acetabular osteotomy
| Study | Hips/patients | RAO isolated,* TOA | RAO with other | Clinical outcome scores | Number clinically good or excellent outcome | Change in hips score (points) | Failure definition | Failure | Conversion to THA | Radiographic OA progression |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nakamura et al. [35] (1998) | 145/131 | 145 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 99 hips (68%) | 1.2 (14.2–15.4) | < 14 points | 46 hips (32%) | 7 hips (5%) | 33 hips (23%) | |
| Takatori et al. [53] (2000) | 28/28 | 24 hips (86%) | 4 hips (14%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 11 hips (40%) | 0.4 (13–13.4) | Conversion to THA | 1 hip (4%) | ← | 5 hips (17%) |
| Takatori et al. [54] (2001) | 15/15 | 15 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 11 hips (73%) | 0.8 (15.1–15.9) | Conversion to THA | None | None | 8 hips (53%) | |
| Nozawa et al. [41] (2002) | 50/49 | 48 hips (96%) | 2 hips (4%) | JOA score Merle d’Aubigne |
40 hips (80%) NA |
18 (72–90) 2.5 (13.8–16.3) |
Radiographic OA progression | 10 hips (20%) | one hip (2%) | ← |
| Hasegawa et al. [15] (2002) | 132/126 | 109 hips (83%) | 23 hips (17%) | Harris hip score | NA | 17 (71–89) | Radiographic OA progression | 7 hips (5%) | None | ← |
| Yasunaga et al. [65] (2003) | 26/24 (older) | 26 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 21 hips (81%) | 2.7 (13.9–16.6) | Radiographic OA progression | 5 hips (19%) | None | ← | |
| 63/60 (younger) | 63 hips (100%) | 59 hips (94%) | 2.5 (14.1–16.6) | 4 hips (6%) | None | ← | ||||
| Yasunaga et al. [63] (2004) | 61/54 | 61 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 49 hips (80%) | 2.6 (14.2–16.8) | Radiographic OA progression | 6 hips (10%) | None | ← | |
| Yasunaga et al. [64] (2006) | 43/43 | 43 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 34 hips (79%) | 2.1 (13.3–15.4) | Minimum joint space < 1 mm | 10 hips (23%) | 2 hips (4%) | ← | |
| Ito et al. [20] (2007) | 110/101 | 109 hips (99%) | 2 hips (1%) | Harris hip score | 96 hips (87%) | 16 (73–89) | Radiographic OA progression | 14 hips (13%) | NA | ← |
| Okano et al. [42] (2008) | 49/48 | 49 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 44 hips (90%) | 4 (13–17) | Radiographic OA progression | 11 hips (22%) | NA | ← | |
| Okano et al. [43] (2008) | 44/42 | 44 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 33 hips (75%) | 2.7 (10.8–13.5) | Radiographic OA progression | 11 hips (25%) | 4 hips (10%) | ← | |
| Nozawa et al. [39] (2009) | 57/52 | 57 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 35 hips (61%) | 1.7 (12.6–14.3) | Conversion to THA | 7 hips (12%) | ← | 23 hips (40%) | |
| Nozawa et al. [40] (2009) | 27/25 | 27 hips (100%) | Merle d’Aubigne | 19 hips (70%) | 1.7 (14.1–15.8) | Radiographic OA progression | 5 hips (19%) | 2 hips (7%) | ← | |
| Matsuo et al. [26] (2009) | 16/16 | 16 hips* (100%) | JOA hip score | NA | 17 (66–83) | NA | NA | None | 3 hips (19%) | |
| Yamaguchi et al. [61] (2009) | 41/41 (older) 123/123 (younger) |
164 hips (100%) | Harris hip score | NA | 29 (60–89) 29 (63–92) |
Conversion to THA or HHS < 80 | NA | 4 hips (10%) 4 hips (3%) |
NA | |
| Hasegawa et al. [16] (2010) | 116/113 | 116 hips (100%) | Harris hip score | Minimum joint space ≦ 1 mm 14 hips (77%) |
21 | Conversion to THA or HHS < 80 | NA | 3 hips (17%) | NA | |
| ≧ 1.1 but < 2 mm 33 hips (67%) | 19 | 9 hips (18%) | ||||||||
| ≧ 2.1 but < 3 mm 38 hips (78%) | 20 | 2 hips (4%) | ||||||||
| Fujii et al. [10] (2011) | 121/121 | 114 hips* (94%) | 7 hips (6%) | Merle d’Aubigne | NA | 3.3 (13.1–16.4) | Progression toKellgren Lawrence Grade 4 or conversion to THA | 8 hips (7%) | 1 hip (0.8%) | 16 hips (13%) |
| Ito et al. [21] (2011) | 41/41 (older) 117/117 (younger) |
158 hips (100%) | Harris hip score | 143 hips (93%) | 19 (69–88) 21 (70–91) |
Radiographic OA progression |
11 hips (27%) 13 hips (13%) |
3 hips (7%) 4 hips (3%) |
8 hips (20%) 9 hips (8%) |
RAO = rotational acetabular osteotomy; TOA = transposition osteotomy of acetabulum; OA = osteoarthritis; NA = data not available; HHS = Harris hip score; JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association.