...
首页> 外文期刊>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine >COMPARISON OF PROPHYLACTIC IN-SITU SCREW FIXATION VERSUS OBSERVATION OF THE ASYMPTOMATIC CONTRALATERAL HIP IN SLIPPED CAPITAL FEMORAL EPIPHYSIS (SCFE)
【24h】

COMPARISON OF PROPHYLACTIC IN-SITU SCREW FIXATION VERSUS OBSERVATION OF THE ASYMPTOMATIC CONTRALATERAL HIP IN SLIPPED CAPITAL FEMORAL EPIPHYSIS (SCFE)

机译:预防性原位螺钉固定与剥落资本股骨骨骺(SCFE)中无症状对侧髋关节观察的比较

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic fixation of the asymptomatic, radiographically-normal contralateral hip after unilateral (SCFE) is controversial. Children with unilateral SCFE whose contralateral hip is observed are at risk for having a contralateral slip and associated complications such as avascular necrosis (AVN). On the other hand, prophylactic pinning may be an unnecessary surgery that may also result in substantial complications. A comparison of the two treatment options has not been performed. This study seeks to compare the outcomes and nature of complications of patients whose contralateral hip was observed with those whose hip underwent prophylactic in-situ screw fixation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 197 patients treated for a unilateral SCFE over 20 years between the 1997 and 2017 at two hospitals. Medical records and x-rays were reviewed, and variables of interest included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Modified Oxford Bone Age Score (MOBA) at presentation, length of operation, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospitalization. Additionally, postoperative complications/outcomes such as reoperation in the unaffected hip, pain in the unaffected hip, AVN, chondrolysis, infection. abnormal gait (limp), reslipped epiphysis (growth off of the implanted screw), degenerative joint disease, and development of a limb length discrepancy were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 197 total patients (mean age 11.8) treated for unilateral SCFE, 100 (51%) received prophylactic fixation of their unaffected, contralateral hip and 97 (49%) were observed. Average follow up was 24.5 months. A statistically significant difference was found between groups for age, MOBA Score, EBL, and operative time. No difference was found between groups for BMI, BMI %ile, and length of hospitalization. The unilateral group was older (p&0.001) and had a greater MOBA Score (p=0.006) compared to the prophylactic group (Table 1). Patients in the prophylactic group had greater EBL during surgery (p=0.004) and longer operative time (p&0.001) compared to the unilateral group. In those patients whose contralateral hip was observed, 19% developed a contralateral SCFE which required later in-situ fixation. Amongst those, 2/19 (10%) developed AVN or chondrolysis of the contralateral hip (2% overall). For the contralateral hip, 17/97 (17%) developed hip pain, 10/97 (10%) developed a leg length difference and 24/97 (24%) developed a limp. In those patients who had prophylactic fixation, for the contralateral hip 2/100 (2%) developed AVN, (3/100) 3% required reoperation, 1/100 (1%) developed an infection, 10/100 (10%) developed contralateral hip pain, 4/100 (4%) developed a LLD, and 26/100 (26%) developed a limp. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons and patients should be able to compare outcomes when deciding whether or not to prophylactically fix the asymptomatic contralateral hip in SCFE. For patients with unilateral SCFE, there are similar rates of AVN (2%) of the asymptomatic contralateral hip whether the hip is prophylactically pinned or observed. Between the two treatment options, there are similar outcomes for length of hospital stay, EBL, rate of infection and development of a limp. There is a higher rate of a LLD and the need for another operation in patients whose contralateral asymptomatic hip is observed, rather than prophylactically pinned. Table 1. Unilateral and Prophylactic Descriptive Statistics Unilateral (n=97) Prophylactic (n=100) P Sex Male 61 65 - Female 36 35 - Age (years) 12.4 11.3 &0.001* BMI 27.9 28.4 0.57 BMI Percentile 92.6% 93.5% 0.08 Modified Oxford Bone Age Score 20.6 19.6 0.006* Operative Time (minutes) 48.6 86.5 &0.001* Estimated Blood Loss (mL) 8.6 13.2 0.004* Length of Hospitalization (days) 1.0 1.1 0.28 Length of Follow-up (months) 27.7 21.3 - *Statistically significant difference between unilateral and prophylactic groups (p&0.05)
机译:背景:单侧(SCFE)后无症状的射出射线正常对侧髋的预防性固定是有争议的。未观察到的单侧SCFE的儿童,其对侧髋关节有患有对侧滑移和相关并发症,如缺血性坏死(AVN)。另一方面,预防性钉扎可能是不必要的手术,也可能导致具有实质性并发症。尚未进行两种治疗选项的比较。本研究旨在比较患者的并发症的结果和性质,其髋关节接受预防原位螺钉固定的那些髋关节的结果。方法:我们回顾性地审查了1997年和2017年在两家医院20年来为单边SCFE治疗的197名患者。审查了病历和X射线,患有兴趣的变量,性别,体重指数(BMI),修饰牛津骨龄评分(MOBA)在呈现,操作长度,估计血液损失(EBL)和长度住院治疗。此外,术后并发症/结果如未受影响的髋关节,未受影响的髋关节,AVN,软骨溶解,感染疼痛。记录了异常步态(跛行),重新覆盖骨骺(植入螺杆的生长),记录退行性关节疾病和肢体长度差异的发展。结果:197例,对于单侧SCFE治疗的197例患者(平均年龄11.8),观察到100(51%)预防性固定,其未受影响,对侧髋关节和97(49%)。平均跟进是24.5个月。在年龄,MOBA得分,EBL和操作时间之间存在统计学上显着的差异。 BMI,BMI%ILE和住院长度之间没有差异。单侧组较旧(P <0.001),与预防性组相比具有更大的MOBA得分(P = 0.006)(表1)。与单侧组相比,预防性组中的患者在手术期间具有更大的EBL(p = 0.004)和较长的操作时间(P <0.001)。在观察到对侧髋髋的患者中,19%的患者开发了对侧的对侧SCFE,以后需要原位固定。其中2/19(10%)开发了对侧髋髋的AVN或软骨溶解(总体上为2%)。对于对侧髋关节,17/97(17%)发育髋关节疼痛,10/97(10%)开发腿长差,24/97(24%)开发出跛行。在具有预防性固定的那些患者中,对于对侧髋髋2/100(2%)发育的AVN,(3/100)3%所需的再生,1/100(1%)发育感染,10/100(10%)开发的对侧髋关节疼痛,4/100(4%)开发了一个LLD,26/100(26%)开发出跛行。结论:外科医生和患者应该能够在决定是否预防性地固定SCFE中的无症状对侧髋关节时比较结果。对于单侧SCFE的患者,无论髋关节是预防性固定还是观察的,都存在类似的AVN(2%)的无症状对侧髋。在两种治疗方案之间,存在类似的住院时间,EBL,感染率和跛行的发展。 LLD的速度较高,需要在观察到对侧无症状髋关节的患者中的另一个操作,而不是预防性钉扎。表1.单侧和预防性描述性统计单侧(n = 97)预防性(n = 100)p性男性61 65 - 雌性36 35岁(年)12.4 11.3 <0.001 * BMI 27.9 28.4 0.57 BMI百分位92.6%93.5% 0.08改性牛津骨龄较小21.6 19.6 0.006 *操作时间(分钟)48.6 86.5 <0.001 *估计血液损失(ml)8.6 13.2 0.004 *住院时间(天)1.0 1.1 0.28的后续行动时间(月份)27.7 - *单侧和预防性基团之间的统计学意义(P <0.05)

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号