The purpose of this study was to report on the use of image analysis technology to enhance accuracy of intra-operative imaging and evaluation of periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) correction. This was a retrospective study reporting on the first 25 cases of PAO performed with the use of an image analysis tool. This technology was used intra-operatively to assess the position of the supine coronal image in comparison to pre-operative standing images using a ratio of pelvic tilt (PT). Intra-operative PT, Tönnis angle, lateral center–edge angle (LCEA) and anterior wall index were compared to post-operative images. Post-operative radiographic parameters in the study group were compared with a control group of PAO cases performed prior to the implementation of the new software. The image analysis software was able to obtain intra-operative supine imaging that was equivalent to pre-operative standing imaging. When comparing the PAOs performed with the use of the software versus those without, the study group trended toward being more likely within the surgeon’s defined target range of radiographic values, which was statistically significant for LCEA. This tool can be used to assure the surgeon that the intra-operative image being used for surgical decision-making is representative of the functional radiograph. PAOs performed with the use of this technology showed enhanced accuracy of surgical correction for the parameters within our defined target ranges. This may increase the ability of the surgeon to place the acetabular fragment more precisely within his or her goal parameters for acetabular reorientation correction.

Background: It is currently unknown whether the addition of arthroscopic labral repair in the setting of periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) provides any clinical benefit. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair concomitantly with PAO versus patients who underwent PAO alone. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between the cohorts. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing PAO from a single-center prospective hip preservation registry were eligible for this study if they completed pre- and postoperative PROMs (minimum, 1 year). PROMs were collected at 1 year, 2 years, and latest follow-up at 6.05 years for PAO group and 4.2 years for scope/PAO group. The study group consisted of 53 patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair at the time of their PAO, and the comparison group consisted of 170 patients who underwent PAO alone. A subset of the PAO group who had radiologic evidence of a detached labral tear (n = 33) was also compared with the rest of the PAO-alone group. PROMs were compared at every time point for both groups as well as the subset of patients who underwent PAO alone despite a labral tear. Results: The mean follow-up of all patients was 2 years (range, 1-6 years). Overall, 85.2% of the PAO group and 85.7% of the scope/PAO group met the minimal clinically important difference for either the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) or the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) at the most recent follow-up. There was no difference in improvement between groups (mHHS, P = .670; iHOT-33, P = .944). Patients who had a radiologically diagnosed detached labral tear and underwent PAO alone had no difference in outcomes when compared with the rest of the PAO cohort (mHHS, P = .981; iHOT-33, P = .909). Conclusion: There was no significant benefit measured by PROMs at follow-up for concomitant arthroscopic labral repair in the setting of PAO.