Single Versus 3-incision Triple Pelvic Osteotomy: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Results


KOLAÇ U. C., GAZELOĞLU A. O., ORAL M., YILMAZ E. T., Bakircioglu S., AKSOY M. C., ...Daha Fazla

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS, sa.8, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

Özet

Background:Triple pelvic osteotomy (TPO) is indicated when the anatomic and functional realignment of the hip joint is needed. Although the traditional approach for TPO involves a separate incision for ischial cut, there has been a trend for single-incision TPO in recent years. This study aims to compare the clinical and radiologic results of 2 different approaches.Methods:Forty-two hips of 39 patients treated using TPO with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up were included in our cohort. Demographics, perioperative, and radiologic parameters were evaluated. Harris Hip Score and International Hip Outcome Tool were used for clinical evaluation.Results:A single anterolateral incision approach was used in 18 hips (17 patients), whereas a 3-incision approach was used in 24 hips (22 patients). The mean follow-up was 4.7 years in the 3-incision group and 3.8 years in the single-incision group (P=0.43), with mean surgery age at 8.7 years (range, 5.4 to 12) for single-incision and 9.7 years (range, 7.7 to 11.7) for 3e-incision (P=0.22). There were no significant differences observed between the 2 groups concerning radiographic measurements, complications, and functional scores. The mean surgical time was 118.6 minutes in the single-incision group and 97.9 minutes in 3-incision group (P=0.036). Mean intraoperative blood loss was 181.7 ml in the single-incision group and 243.4 ml in 3-incision group (P=0.028). Three-incision group demonstrated significantly higher intraoperative blood loss, leading to lower hemoglobin values (P=0.042).Conclusion:The single-incision TPO demonstrated similar outcomes compared with the traditional 3-incision approach in terms of radiologic correction and functional improvement. The single-incision technique exhibited advantages such as reduced intraoperative blood loss and potential benefit of decreased pain due to fewer scars. However, it required a longer surgical time compared with the 3-incision approach. Surgeons should consider patient-specific factors and their expertise when selecting the most appropriate approach for each case.Level of Evidence:Level III-retrospective comparative series.