Hip dysplasia is a leading cause of hip osteoarthritis. While periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is effective for relieving pain and dysfunction caused by hip dysplasia in adolescents and young adults, ...there is concern that patients over 40 years of age will have an increased risk of persistent dysfunction and need for total hip arthroplasty. Current available evidence for PAO in older adults is limited and there is no systematic review in the literature focusing on this topic. The current systematic review offers insight into the demographics, patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores, and hip survivorship from total hip arthroplasty in patients over 40 years older treated for hip dysplasia with PAO.BackgroundHip dysplasia is a leading cause of hip osteoarthritis. While periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is effective for relieving pain and dysfunction caused by hip dysplasia in adolescents and young adults, there is concern that patients over 40 years of age will have an increased risk of persistent dysfunction and need for total hip arthroplasty. Current available evidence for PAO in older adults is limited and there is no systematic review in the literature focusing on this topic. The current systematic review offers insight into the demographics, patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores, and hip survivorship from total hip arthroplasty in patients over 40 years older treated for hip dysplasia with PAO.The review was conducted under the guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Databases that were searched included PubMed, OVID Medline, SCOPUS, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov. Studies were screened based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.MethodsThe review was conducted under the guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Databases that were searched included PubMed, OVID Medline, SCOPUS, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov. Studies were screened based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.Five studies were included in this systematic review. Enrollment years were 1990-2013. In total, there were 335 hips with mean ages between 43.5-47.2 years. Mean follow up was 4-10.8 years. Most patients that underwent hip preservation had Tonnis osteoarthritis grade 0-1. There was contradicting evidence whether patients >40 years did better or worse compared to <40 years; although, most patients in the >40 years group had good outcomes after PAO. PAO survivorship ranged from 67-100% depending on the study. Complications ranged from 2-36% of cases depending on the study; although, none of these complications had lasting effects.ResultsFive studies were included in this systematic review. Enrollment years were 1990-2013. In total, there were 335 hips with mean ages between 43.5-47.2 years. Mean follow up was 4-10.8 years. Most patients that underwent hip preservation had Tonnis osteoarthritis grade 0-1. There was contradicting evidence whether patients >40 years did better or worse compared to <40 years; although, most patients in the >40 years group had good outcomes after PAO. PAO survivorship ranged from 67-100% depending on the study. Complications ranged from 2-36% of cases depending on the study; although, none of these complications had lasting effects.Patients over 40 years old appear to have positive outcomes when treated for hip dysplasia with PAO, though these patients were likely selected for no to minimal osteoarthritis, high functional status, and good health. PAO should be considered for patients with hip dysplasia over 40 years old without hip arthritis, though we recommend very selective indications. Level of Evidence: II.ConclusionPatients over 40 years old appear to have positive outcomes when treated for hip dysplasia with PAO, though these patients were likely selected for no to minimal osteoarthritis, high functional status, and good health. PAO should be considered for patients with hip dysplasia over 40 years old without hip arthritis, though we recommend very selective indications. Level of Evidence: II.
