Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is a disease characterized by significant ossification of ligaments and tendon–bone attachment sites of the spine and appendicular skeleton that causes back pain, movement limitation, and a reduced range of joint motion. Forestier and Rotes-Querol1 described ankylosing spinal hyperostosis associated with ossification of the anterior longitudinal ligament of the spine in 1950. In 1976, Resnick and Niwayama2 proposed the concept of a systemic condition that affects not only the spine, but also the appendicular skeleton and named it DISH. Investigators have shown that the radiographic and pathologic incidence of DISH was 12% in 215 cadavers.2
When hip joints are afflicted with DISH, abnormal ossified lesions are formed surrounding both the acetabulum and femoral head. Although DISH often progresses asymptomatically, such abnormal ossification can cause pincer femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), predisposing patients to osteoarthritis. Patients with recalcitrant pain and/or significantly reduced range of motion failing nonsurgical measures may be candidates for surgical treatment.3 Open surgical dislocation with a trochanteric osteotomy may be used for eradication of abnormal ossified lesions, allowing for direct visualization. However, these open surgical procedures are highly invasive, and concerns exist about postoperative complications and hip abductor dysfunction.4–8
Hip arthroscopy is a promising tool for treating FAI,9 but DISH of the hip (circumferential acetabular overcoverage of the femoral head) may prevent central compartment access and instrument navigation.10 To address this, the authors used a transverse, capsulotomy-first approach for hip arthroscopy8 in their practice. It was hypothesized that hip arthroscopy using this approach in patients with DISH is a minimally invasive procedure that provides clinical benefit. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the clinical, radiographic, and arthroscopic presentation and arthroscopic surgical outcomes of patients with DISH.
Materials and Methods
The local institutional review board approved this study, and all study participants provided informed consent. The authors prospectively followed patients who were diagnosed with DISH according to the Resnick and Niwayam2 criteria and underwent hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon (senior author [S.U.]) at their institution between 2009 and 2016. Surgery was indicated for patients with severe pain and a reduced range of motion due to ossified lesions. A total of 14 joints in 9 patients (1 woman and 8 men) were included in this study. Mean age at the time of surgery was 63±14 years (range, 35–76 years; Table 1).
Radiographs of all patients were assessed both pre- and postoperatively. All radiographic measurements were manually performed using a picture archiving and communication system. The lateral center-edge (LCE) angle,11 vertical center anterior (VCA) angle,12 Tönnis angle,13 and alpha angle14 were obtained on anteroposterior pelvic view, cross-table lateral view, or modified Dunn view.
The shape and location of ossified lesions were evaluated using computed tomography (CT). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was also performed in all patients to detect any lesions of the labrum, cartilage, and sacroiliac joint.
Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of these radiographic parameters were investigated. For intraobserver reliability, 1 hip surgeon (Y.Y.) measured each radiograph 3 times, with an interval of at least 1 week between measurements. For interobserver reliability, 2 surgeons blinded to the clinical data and details of the radiology reports independently measured each radiograph. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to quantify inter- and intraobserver reliability for continuous variables.
Patients completed detailed patient-reported outcome scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS; of possible 100 points),15 Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS; of possible 80 points),4 visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (of possible 100 points), VAS satisfaction score (of possible 100 points), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHot-12) score.16 Furthermore, the patients were asked whether they had any back pain or stiffness. Patient-reported outcomes from a preoperative evaluation and at last follow-up were obtained and analyzed. In addition, range of hip flexion and abduction were evaluated.
Hip arthroscopy was performed with the patient under general anesthesia and supine on a traction table. Because it was difficult to apply sufficient traction due to the excessive ossification at the acetabular rim in all patients, a transverse, capsulotomy-first approach was used (Figure 1). The anterolateral, mid-anterior, and proximal mid-anterior portals were established. Creation of the space between the anterior capsule and gluteus minimus was performed prior to capsulotomy.
Anterolateral arthroscopic images showing the peripheral capsulotomy-first approach. A blunt rod is inserted into the space between the capsule and the gluteus minimus muscle (G. Min.) (a). The inserted blunt rod or ablator expands the space between the capsule and the gluteus minimus muscle (b). A transverse incision is made to the capsule (c). The incision is extending to approach joint (d). Extensive spurs of the anterior and lateral part are observed (e). Excessive spurs were resected by using an osteotomy to create a working space and allow the insertion of instruments into the joint (f). A cam deformity was first resected before insertion of devices into the joint space, if necessary (g). Excessive spur and a cam deformity were resected (h).
A blunt switching stick was first inserted via the anterolateral portal, and the gluteus minimus muscle was partly separated from the capsule while palpating the underlying femoral neck. A shaver and radiofrequency probe were then used to further develop the space between the capsule and the gluteus minimus muscle, followed by a transverse anterior capsular incision along the anterior rim, which were performed under fluoroscopic and arthroscopic guidance to ensure that the instruments do not damage the underlying femoral head cartilage and labrum.
Extensive spurs along the anterior and lateral rim appeared during transverse capsulotomy. Spur resection and rim trimming were performed under arthroscopic guidance with a motorized round burr and osteotome. After appropriate rim resection, traction was applied to access and evaluate the central compartment pathologies, including chondrolabral status.
Severe labral damage was seen in all patients. When irreparable, a labral reconstruction using an iliotibial band autograft was performed.17 After releasing traction, dynamic arthroscopic examination confirmed cam impingement, which was resolved by cam osteoplasty for all patients. Capsular closure was then performed.18,19
Postoperatively, patients were restricted to partial weight bearing for 1 to 2 weeks; they started range-of-motion exercises and strength training on the first postoperative day.
Intra-articular pathologies, including labral tearing and cartilage delamination at the acetabular rim, were evaluated according to the proposed Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network classification of acetabular rim lesions20; cartilage damage at the femoral head was evaluated according to the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) classification.21
Wilcoxon t test and Mann–Whitney U test were used to compare parameters and clinical scores between pre- and postoperative data. The authors presented these values as mean and ranges. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software package (version 13; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois). P<.05 was considered statistically significant.
Preoperative plain radiographs showed bilateral ossification extending from the acetabular rim and surrounding the femoral head in all patients. The preoperative radiographic measurements of each patient are shown in Table 2.
Preoperative Radiographic Data
Mean preoperative LCE, Sharp, VCA, and alpha angles were 62° (range, 41° to 65°), 31° (range, 24° to 38°), 42° (range, 33° to 56°), and 73° (range, 64° to 80°), respectively (Table 2). Inter- and intraobserver ICCs of the LCE angles were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.35–0.96) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.40–0.96), respectively. The ICCs of the Sharp, alpha, and VCA angles were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.56–0.98), 0.54 (95% CI, 0.20–0.92), and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.44–0.92), respectively.
The joint space was preserved in all patients, with 5 patients each exhibiting Tönnis grade 1 or 2 osteoarthritis.22 Ossified lesions were also observed near the lesser trochanter along the iliopsoas muscle in 6 hips and around the greater trochanter in 4 hips. Consistent with the plain radiograph findings, the CT examination revealed significant ossification extending circumferentially around the joint such that the border between the ossified lesions and the original acetabular rim could not be distinguished. The weight-bearing surface had no bone cysts associated with osteoarthritis, and there were no bone spurs in the lunate fossa (except 3 hips of 2 patients showing Tönnis grade 2).
Magnetic resonance imaging showed ossified or degenerative labrum in all patients, and 5 patients with osteoarthritic changes were suspected to have cartilage damage (articular cartilage thinning). No abnormalities of the sacroiliac joint were found on CT or MRI for all patients. Outside the hip joint, 6 (67%) patients had ossified lesions in the shoulder and knee, respectively. Back pain and stiffness were reported by 4 (44%) patients. Preoperative blood chemistry tests showed no elevation of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, HLA B27, or other obvious abnormalities.
Arthroscopic findings are detailed in Table 3. Arthroscopically, the articular cartilage at the acetabular weight-bearing region appeared normal in 7 joints of 9 patients; an ICRS score of 1 and 2 was observed in 3 hips each. All patients had an ossified or degenerative labrum with circumferential involvement. According to cartilage delamination at rim lesion, a Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network grade 0 was observed in 9 hips, grade 2 in 1 hip, grade 3 in 1 hip, and grade 4 in 2 hips.
Labral damage was treated with selective debridement in 4 joints and with reconstruction using the iliotibial band in 9 joints. The weight-bearing cartilage of the femoral head was normal in 8 joints and an ICRS score of 1 was observed in 3 joints and an ICRS score of 2 was observed in 2 joints. For all joints, cam lesion was present and resected arthroscopically. Mean±SD surgical time was 163±35 minutes.
Plain radiographs showed improved mean LCE from 62° preoperatively to 33° postoperatively (postoperative range, 25° to 40°) and improved mean Sharp angle from 31° preoperatively to 39° postoperatively (postoperative range, 31° to 44°; P<.001; Table 4, Figure 2). Similarly, postoperative mean VCA, alpha, and Tönnis angles were also significantly improved.
Change in Radiographic Measurements
Pre- (A) and postoperative (B) radiographs and pre- (C) and postoperative (D) 3-dimensional computed tomography scans of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. Preoperatively, periarticular hyperostosis abnormally surrounded the femoral heads. Ossification was also seen at the attachment site of the iliopsoas muscle and the rectus femoris muscle. Arthroscopically, the anterosuperior excessive rim was totally trimmed and the obvious cam lesion was resected to relieve impingement.
The results of clinical scores were shown in Table 5. Mean scores increased significantly for the NAHS (47 [range, 14 to 76] to 56 [range, 34 to 80]), VAS satisfaction score (21 [range, 0 to 87] to 72 [range, 37 to 98]), and iHot-12 score (43 [range, 1 to 93] to 71 [range, 34 to 98]; all P<.05). A slight, statistically insignificant improvement was observed in mean mHHS (65 [range, 20 to 95] to 92 [range, 53 to 92]) and mean VAS pain score (45 [range, 30 to 84] to 78 [range, 42 to 95]). Mean range of hip flexion changed from 90° (SD, 10.0°) to 100.8° (SD, 4.9°). For mean hip abduction, a slight improvement was observed, from 26.4° (SD, 9.4°) to 30.0° (SD, 8.9°). However, no significant differences were observed for range of motion in flexion and abduction. During the follow-up period, no patients experienced progression of hip osteoarthritis or underwent reoperation or conversion to total hip arthroplasty.
Change in Clinical Scores
The arthroscopic surgical technique of using a transverse, capsulotomy-first approach for treating a global pincer impingement, such as DISH, is based on an anterior Hueter approach used under endoscopic control.8,23 Matsuda et al10 first described the technique of a capsulotomy- and acetabuloplasty-first approach, which enabled the arthroscopic treatment of extreme global pincer impingement even in protrusio acetabuli.24 When using an inside-out anterior capsulotomy with a 2-portal circumferential acetabuloplasty under arthroscopic and fluoroscopic guidance, controlled central compartment access was achieved, enabling chondrolabral procedures with outcomes similar to patients with less severe focal pincer FAI.25
Another recent study reported successful arthroscopic outcomes approaching, but not reaching, those done for patients without global pincer FAI.26 The technique described in this study for DISH used an outside-in anterior capsulotomy that obviates the need for initial hip distraction followed by acetabuloplasty and spur re-section enabling subsequent central compartment access under distraction. This approach also enabled the necessary treatment, even in the presence of overcoverage resulting from excessive ossification, which would increase both the force and duration of traction, as well as increase the risk of labral or chondral damage.8
Compared with an open surgery, such as a transtrochanteric approach with surgical dislocation, hip arthroscopy is a less invasive procedure that enables the circumferential treatment of intra-articular lesions, including resection of pincer lesions, using an image intensifier as needed. A fluoroscopic templating technique has been described that may aid controlled rim trimming of the anterior, superior, and posterior acetabular rims.27 Although a deep socket of global pincer impingement has inherent bony stability, patients with DISH may actually be at risk of postoperative joint instability following resection of spurs, ossified labrum, and circumferential acetabular rim; arthroscopic labral reconstruction and capsule reefing can minimize this risk while potentially enhancing joint preservation.
Total hip arthroplasty may be a solution for pain relief in patients with DISH. However, these patients may be at a greater risk for heterotopic ossification postoperatively.28–30 In the current study, arthroscopic findings revealed that joint cartilage appears to be normally preserved in 10 of 14 joints. Moreover, the age of patients with DISH was relatively younger than the typical osteoarthritis population. Thus, the current authors believed that patients with DISH would benefit from hip arthroscopic preservation surgery rather than total hip arthroplasty.
Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis is mainly characterized by ossification at the spine, which causes back pain and severely reduces spinal mobility.31 The manifestation of DISH is thought to be enthesis or inflammation at the sites where muscles, tendons, or ligaments attach to the bone.32–34
Systemic periarticular ligament ossification can lead to progressive restriction of joint range of motion. Indeed, 44% of patients enrolled in this study had back pain, and 67% of patients had restricted range of motion of joints other than the hips. The systematic pathologic entity of DISH, such as sacroiliac joint stiffness and lumbar spinal arthrosis, may explain the lack of significantly increased hip range of motion following hip arthroscopy in the current study. The presence of these conditions might impact functional and pain scoring. Nevertheless, statistical improvement of satisfaction levels and other clinical scores were seen, so it is plausible that hip arthroscopy is an effective surgical procedure for symptomatic improvement in the hips with DISH.
Circumferential pathology was present in all hips with DISH, and most of the labrum were totally calcified and unsalvageable. Therefore, they had to be resected as part of the comprehensive treatment of pincer FAI to address global overcoverage. Because the acetabular labrum plays an important role in proprioception, nociception, synovial fluid seal effect, static and dynamic joint stability, and as a shock absorber, labral reconstruction was performed.
A recent study demonstrated that reconstruction of the labrum showed as good outcomes in patient-reported outcome scores as labral re-fixation, even though the mean age in the reconstruction group was significantly older than that in the re-fixation group.35 Based on these aforementioned studies, the current authors recommend labral reconstruction for hips with DISH afflicted with irreparable labral damage and/or marked calcification/ossification.
No large-scale epidemiological studies of DISH have been performed, and its reported prevalence ranges from 5.5% to 27.1%.36,37 It occurs most often in men older than 40 years, and the prevalence increases with age.33,38 Because DISH gradually progresses over time and there is no effective medical treatment to modify progression, the disease is expected to severely affect patients' daily lives and social activities. Although surgery only provides local management with resection, an increase in the incidence of hip arthroscopy for DISH is anticipated as the condition becomes more widely recognized. However, there have been few case reports of surgical management, and the long-term outcomes postoperatively, including the risk of recurrence, remain unknown.
Although the current study is the largest case series on hip arthroscopic outcomes in DISH, the small number of patients in the study is a limitation. Moreover, this was a case series study without a control group, so it is necessary to perform a comparative cohort study between patients undergoing arthroscopy and other procedures. The short-term follow-up limits conclusions about the durability of the observed outcomes.
Hips afflicted with DISH had circumferential labral damage, often with labral calcification but preserved articular cartilage, and global pincer and cam femoroacetabular impingement. Hip arthroscopic surgery via an outside-in capsulotomy- and acetabuloplasty-first approach is a safe, minimally invasive technique, enabling circumferential treatment of the acetabular rim and intraarticular pathology and treatment of coexistent cam femoroacetabular impingement.
- Forestier J, Rotes-Querol J. Senile ankylosing hyperostosis of the spine. Ann Rheum Dis. 1950;9(4):321–330. doi:10.1136/ard.9.4.321 [CrossRef] PMID:14800245
- Resnick D, Niwayama G. Radiographic and pathologic features of spinal involvement in diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH). Radiology. 1976;119(3):559–568. doi:10.1148/119.3.559 [CrossRef] PMID:935390
- Tsuji S, Tomita T, Inaoka M, Higashiyama M. Case report: psoriatic erythroderma with bilateral osseous bridge across the acetabulum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(4):1173–1177. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1010-8 [CrossRef] PMID:19657703
- Cashman JP, Cashman WF. Comparison of complications in transtrochanteric and anterolateral approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2008;31(11):1085–1088. doi:10.3928/01477447-20081101-04 [CrossRef] PMID:19226096
- Lim SJ, Chung HW, Choi YL, Moon YW, Seo JG, Park YS. Operative treatment of primary synovial osteochondromatosis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(11):2456–2464. doi:10.2106/00004623-200611000-00019 [CrossRef] PMID:17079404
- Nisar A, Gulhane S, Mahendra A, Meek RM, Patil S. Surgical dislocation of the hip for excision of benign tumours. J Orthop. 2014;11(1):28–36. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2013.12.009 [CrossRef] PMID:24719531
- Schinsky MF, Nercessian OA, Arons RR, Macaulay W. Comparison of complications after transtrochanteric and posterolateral approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(4):430–434. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00144-X [CrossRef] PMID:12820084
- Thaunat M, Murphy CG, Chatellard R, et al. Capsulotomy first: a novel concept for hip arthroscopy. Arthrosc Tech. 2014;3(5):e599–e603. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2014.06.016 [CrossRef] PMID:25473614
- Murata Y, Uchida S, Utsunomiya H, et al. A comparison of clinical outcome between athletes and nonathletes undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. Clin J Sport Med. in press.
- Matsuda DK, Gupta N, Hanami D. Hip arthroscopy for challenging deformities: global pincer femoroacetabular impingement. Arthrosc Tech. 2014;3(2):e197–e204. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2013.09.021 [CrossRef] PMID:24904760
- Wiberg G. Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenital subluxation of the hip joint. Acta Chir Scand. 1939;(suppl 58).
- Petru E, Pickel H, Tamussino K, et al. Pretherapeutic scalene lymph node biopsy in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1991;43(3):262–264. doi:10.1016/0090-8258(91)90032-Z [CrossRef] PMID:1752497
- Tönnis D. Normal values of the hip joint for the evaluation of X-rays in children and adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(119):39–47. PMID:954321
- Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J. The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(4):556–560. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.84B4.0840556 [CrossRef] PMID:12043778
- Byrd JW, Jones KS. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(6):578–587. doi:10.1053/jars.2000.7683 [CrossRef] PMID:10976117
- Griffin DR, Parsons N, Mohtadi NG, Safran MRMulticenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):611–616. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.02.027 [CrossRef] PMID:22542434
- Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Hay CJ, Kuppersmith DA, Dewing CB, Huang MJ. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip using iliotibial band autograft: technique and early outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(6):750–756. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.10.016 [CrossRef] PMID:20511032
- Domb BG, Philippon MJ, Giordano BD. Arthroscopic capsulotomy, capsular repair, and capsular plication of the hip: relation to atraumatic instability. Arthroscopy.2013;29(1):162–173. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.04.057 [CrossRef] PMID:22901333
- Uchida S, Wada T, Sakoda S, et al. Endoscopic shelf acetabuloplasty combined with labral repair, cam osteochondroplasty, and capsular plication for treating developmental hip dysplasia. Arthrosc Tech. 2014;3(1):e185–e191. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2013.09.013 [CrossRef] PMID:24749043
- Safran MRHS, Hariri S. Hip arthroscopy assessment tools and outcomes. Oper Tech Orthop. 2010;20(4):264–277. doi:10.1053/j.oto.2010.09.014 [CrossRef]
- Mainil-Varlet P, Aigner T, Brittberg M, et al. International Cartilage Repair Society. Histological assessment of cartilage repair: a report by the Histology Endpoint Committee of the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(suppl 2):45–57. doi:10.2106/00004623-200300002-00007 [CrossRef] PMID:12721345
- Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(12):1747–1770. doi:10.2106/00004623-199912000-00014 [CrossRef] PMID:10608388
- Laude F, Sariali E, Nogier A. Femoroacetabular impingement treatment using arthroscopy and anterior approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(3):747–752. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0656-y [CrossRef] PMID:19089524
- Matsuda DK. Protrusio acetabuli: contraindication or indication for hip arthroscopy? And the case for arthroscopic treatment of global pincer impingement. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(6):882–888. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.02.028 [CrossRef] PMID:22551946
- Matsuda DK, Gupta N, Burchette RJ, Sehgal B. Arthroscopic surgery for global versus focal pincer femoroacetabular impingement: are the outcomes different?J Hip Preserv Surg.2015;2(1):42–50. doi:10.1093/jhps/hnv010 [CrossRef] PMID:27011813
- Chandrasekaran S, Darwish N, Chaharbakhshi EO, Suarez-Ahedo C, Lodhia P, Domb BG. Minimum 2-year outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery in patients with acetabular overcoverage and profunda acetabulae compared with matched controls with normal acetabular coverage. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(11):2483–2492. doi:10.1177/0363546517708769 [CrossRef] PMID:28609125
- Matsuda DK. Fluoroscopic templating technique for precision arthroscopic rim trimming. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(10):1175–1182. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.06.017 [CrossRef] PMID:19801294
- Belanger TA, Rowe DE. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: musculoskeletal manifestations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001;9(4):258–267. doi:10.5435/00124635-200107000-00006 [CrossRef] PMID:11476536
- Guillemin F, Mainard D, Rolland H, Delagoutte JP. Antivitamin K prevents heterotopic ossification after hip arthroplasty in diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: a retrospective study in 67 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66(2):123–126. doi:10.3109/17453679508995504 [CrossRef] PMID:7740940
- Pellegrini VD Jr, Gregoritch SJ. Preoperative irradiation for prevention of heterotopic ossification following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(6):870–881. doi:10.2106/00004623-199606000-00010 [CrossRef] PMID:8666605
- Westerveld LA, Verlaan JJ, Oner FC. Spinal fractures in patients with ankylosing spinal disorders: a systematic review of the literature on treatment, neurological status and complications. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(2):145–156. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0764-0 [CrossRef] PMID:18791749
- Mader R. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: time for a change. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(3):377–379. PMID:18322973
- Nascimento FA, Gatto LA, Lages RO, Neto HM, Demartini Z, Koppe GL. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: a review. Surg Neurol Int. 2014;5(4)(suppl 3):S122–S125. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.130675 [CrossRef] PMID:24843807
- Pappone N, Di Girolamo C, Del Puente A, Scarpa R, Oriente P. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH): a retrospective analysis. Clin Rheumatol. 1996;15(2):121–124. doi:10.1007/BF02230327 [CrossRef] PMID:8777843
- Nakashima H, Tsukamoto M, Ohnishi Y, et al. Clinical and radiographic predictors for unsalvageable labral tear at the time of initial hip arthroscopic management for femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(9):2029–2037. doi:10.1177/0363546519856018 [CrossRef] PMID:31233328
- Hirasawa A, Wakao N, Kamiya M, et al. The prevalence of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis in Japan: the first report of measurement by CT and review of the literature. J Orthop Sci. 2016;21(3):287–290. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2016.02.001 [CrossRef] PMID:26948246
- van der Merwe AE, Maat GJ, Watt I. Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: diagnosis in a palaeopathological context. Homo. 2012;63(3):202–215. doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2012.03.005 [CrossRef] PMID:22560176
- Weinfeld RM, Olson PN, Maki DD, Griffiths HJ. The prevalence of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) in two large American Midwest metropolitan hospital populations. Skeletal Radiol. 1997;26(4):222–225. doi:10.1007/s002560050225 [CrossRef] PMID:9151370
|Patient No.||Operative Side||Age, y||Sex||BMI, kg/m2||Symptoms of Hip Joint||Time to Surgery, y||Follow-up, y||AIT||Other Affected Joints||Back Pain|
|1||Bilateral||67||M||16||Severe pain, stiffness||5||6||+||Knee, shoulder||+|
|2||Bilateral||56||M||21||Moderate pain, stiffness||2||4||+||NA||+|
|3||Bilateral||35||M||22||Moderate pain, stiffness||1.5||3||+||NA||+|
|4||Bilateral||76||M||24||Moderate pain, stiffness||1||3||+||NA||-|
|5||Right||69||M||25||Mild pain, stiffness||2||2||-||Knee||+|
|6||Left||60||M||25||Moderate pain, stiffness||0.5||6||+||Shoulder||-|
|7||Left||68||M||25||Moderate pain, stiffness||1||2||+||Shoulder||-|
|8||Left||73||F||25||Moderate pain, stiffness||2||3||+||Knee||-|
|9||Right||65||M||26||Moderate pain, stiffness||10||1||+||Knee||-|
Preoperative Radiographic Data
|Patient No.||Operative Side||LCE Angle||Sharp Angle||Tönnis Angle||VCA Angle||Alpha Angle||Tönnis Classification|
|Patient No.||Side||Labrum/Rim Lesion||Cartilage Damage of Acetabulum (ICRS)||Cartilage Damage of Femoral Head||Surgical Time, min|
|Pathology||Delamination on Acetabulum (MAHORN)||Surgical Procedure||Weight Bearing (ICRS)||Peripheral Site (ICRS)||Surgical Procedure|
|1||Right||Ossified||0||Reconstruction Rim trimming||0||0||4||Cam resection||230|
|Left||Hypoplastic||0||Reconstruction Rim trimming||0||0||3||Cam resection||180|
|2||Right||Ossified||2||Resection Rim trimming||2||2||4||Cam resection||202|
|Left||Ossified||3||Resection Rim trimming||2||2||4||Cam resection||124|
|3||Right||Ossified||0||Reconstruction Rim trimming||0||0||3||Cam resection||139|
|Left||Ossified||4||Reconstruction Rim trimming||2||0||4||Cam resection||213|
|4||Right||Ossified||0||Resection Rim trimming||0||0||4||Cam resection||120|
|Left||Ossified||0||Resection Rim trimming||0||0||4||Cam resection||130|
|5||Right||Ossified||0||Reconstruction Rim trimming||0||0||4||Cam resection||150|
|6||Left||Ossified||4||Reconstruction Rim trimming||0||0||4||Cam resection||160|
|7||Left||Ossified||0||Reconstruction Rim trimming||1||1||3||Cam resection||164|
|8||Left||Ossified||0||Reconstruction Rim trimming||1||1||4||Cam resection||136|
|9||Right||Ossified||0||Reconstruction Rim trimming||1||1||4||Cam resection||180|
Change in Radiographic Measurements
|LCE angle||62° (41° to 65°)||33° (25° to 40°)||<.01|
|Sharp angle||31° (24° to 38°)||39° (31° to 44°)||<.01|
|VCA angle||42° (33° to 56°)||31° (21° to 40°)||<.01|
|Alpha angle||73° (64° to 80°)||57° (48° to 65°)||<.01|
|Tönnis angle||−6° (−12° to −1°)||1 (−4° to 4°)||<.01|
Change in Clinical Scores
|Outcome Measure||Mean (Range) Score, points||P|
|mHHS||65 (20 to 95)||92 (53 to 92)||.09|
|NAHS||47 (14 to 76)||56 (34 to 80)||.03|
|VAS, pain||45 (30 to 84)||78 (42 to 95)||.07|
|VAS, satisfaction||21 (0 to 87)||72 (37 to 98)||.02|
|iHot-12||43 (1 to 93)||71 (34 to 98)||.03|