DYSPLASTIC COXARTHROSIS USING THE PROPOSED
Keywords:
dysplastic coxarthrosis, total hip arthroplasty, acetabular component placement, congenital hip dislocation, prognostic factors, surgical algorithms, complications, functional results, radiological analysis, mathematical modeling.Abstract
The treatment of dysplastic coxarthrosis remains one of the most difficult problems in modern orthopedics. Reconstructive operations such as pelvic and proximal femoral osteotomies show high effectiveness only in the early stages of the disease and usually ensure improvement for a limited period of five to ten years. In advanced stages, the most reliable method of care is total hip arthroplasty, which allows significant pain reduction, restoration of joint function, correction of limb length, and return of patients to active daily life. Despite major progress in implant design and surgical techniques, there is still no unified approach to optimal placement of the acetabular component, use of bone grafting, and management of cases with complete congenital hip dislocation. The study performed a comprehensive clinical and radiological analysis of long-term outcomes of hip replacement in patients with different degrees of joint dysplasia and compared them with a control group of patients without dysplastic changes. Mathematical evaluation identified key prognostic factors influencing functional results and complication risks. On the basis of these findings, practical algorithms for choosing surgical tactics were developed and tested. Application of the proposed decision-making system reduced the frequency of complications and improved medium term functional results. The use of individualized algorithms represents an effective tool for achieving outcomes comparable to those in idiopathic osteoarthritis, thereby enhancing quality of life for this complex category of patients.
References
1. Akramov V.R. / Optimization of methods of treatment and rehabilitation of patients with aseptic necrosis of the femoral head. // Abstract of the dissertation. for DSc. Tashkent. 2021; 65 p.
2. Сhen H.T. et al. / Structural and Morselized allografting combined with a cementless cup for acetabular Defects in Revision Total Hip arthroplasty: a 4- to 14-year follow-up. // Biomed Res Int. 2018 feb 4; 2018:2364269. DoI: 10.1155/2018/2364269.
3. Hao Y, Luo D, Wu J, et al. A novel revision system for complex pelvic defects utilizing 3D-printed custom prosthesis. J Orthop Translat. 2021;31:102-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2021.09.006.
4. Haynes J.A. et al. / Contemporary surgical indications and referral trends in revision total hip arthroplasty: A 100-year review. // J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:622-625.
5. Ilyin A.A. and others. / The use of mathematical modeling to predict the biomechanics of hip implants. // Bulletin of traumatology and orthopedics. N.N. Priorov 2009;16(3):7–13.
6. Ilyin A.A. and others. / Substantiation of the design and investigation of the biomechanical behavior of the wedge-shaped leg of the cement fixation of the hip joint endoprosthesis. // Bulletin of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2005; No.3:3-10.
7. Irismetov M.E., Fozilov Kh.T. Khakimov Sh.K., Safarov N.B. / Associated applicance of artroscopic debridement and proximal fibular osteotomy at the treatment of patients with deformic artritis of knee. // Genij Ortopedii. 2022. Vol. 28, no. 6. P. 768-773. doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2022-28-6-768-773
8. Klemt C. et al. Can machine learning models predict failure of revision THA? – Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(6):2805–2812.
9. Klemt C. et al. ML algorithms for predicting PROMs after TJA. – Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(4):2235–2245.
10. Lychagin AV, Rosenberg N, Gritsyuk AA. Evaluation of the potential complications of surgical wound drainage in primary total hip arthroplasty: a prospective controlled double-blind study. Hip Int. 2021;31(5):589-592. doi: 10.1177/1120700020941749.
11. Petrov A.B., Ruzanov V.I., Mashukov T.S. / Long-term results of surgical treatment of patients with acetabulum fractures. // Genius orthopedics. 2020;26(3): 300-305. doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2020-26-3-300-305 25.
12. Reynaud E.V. Optimization of treatment of patients after hip replacement based on prediction and prevention of hemocoagulation disorders: // Abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Medical Sciences. – Perm, 2013. – 24 p.
13. Siu K.T. et al. Risk factors associated with PJI after TKA: a retrospective study of 2543 cases. – Hong Kong Med J. 2018;24(2):152–157.
14. Tikhilov R.M., Javadov A.A., Denisov A.O. et al. / Analysis of the economic efficiency of using individual and serial acetabulum structures in revision hip arthroplasty. // Genius orthopedics. 2022;28(2):234-240. doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2022-28-2-234-240.
15. Udintseva M.Yu. and co-authors. / Primary and revision hip replacement with replacement of acetabulum defects. // Genius orthopedics. 2024;30(6):797-810. doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2024-30-6-797-810.
16. Valiev E.Yu. and others. / The use of modern technologies in the treatment of fractures of the proximal femur in the older age group. // Problems of biology and medicine. 2022;6.1(141):84–90.
17. Valiev E.Yu. and others. / The effect of osteoporosis and the method of fixation on the results of hip replacement. // Problems of biology and medicine. 2022;6.1: pp. 87-89.
18. Voronov A.A. and others. The problem of perioperative prognosis of purulent complications of hip and knee arthroplasty. // Genius orthopedics. Part I. 2020. – No. 1. – pp. 10-18.
19. Voronov A.A. and others. / Prediction of endoprosthetics complications: risk factors and their modification. // Genius orthopedics, 2020, No. 1. pp. 19-25.
20. Yeganeh M.H. et al. Rheumatoid Arthritis, DMARDs, and PJI: What Does a Surgeon Need to Know? – J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(4):1258–1264.
