Cargando…
Prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped capital femoral epiphysis
Background: The use of prophylactic contralateral pinning for slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcome of SCFE treatment and examined the use of prophylactic pinning. Methods: The study included 44 patients (33 men, 11 women; 54 hips [right, 31...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Japanese Association of Rural Medicine
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6877918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31788141 http://dx.doi.org/10.2185/jrm.3011 |
_version_ | 1783473435504017408 |
---|---|
author | Tomaru, Yohei Kamada, Hiroshi Tsukagoshi, Yuta Nakagawa, Shogo Onishi, Mio Tanaka, Kenta Takeuchi, Ryoko Mataki, Yuki Miyakawa, Shumpei Yamazaki, Masashi |
author_facet | Tomaru, Yohei Kamada, Hiroshi Tsukagoshi, Yuta Nakagawa, Shogo Onishi, Mio Tanaka, Kenta Takeuchi, Ryoko Mataki, Yuki Miyakawa, Shumpei Yamazaki, Masashi |
author_sort | Tomaru, Yohei |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: The use of prophylactic contralateral pinning for slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcome of SCFE treatment and examined the use of prophylactic pinning. Methods: The study included 44 patients (33 men, 11 women; 54 hips [right, 31; left, 23]), with mean age of 12.9 (7.3–29) years, who underwent treatment between 1986 and 2017, with follow-up for more than 6 months. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 had bilateral SCFE at first presentation, group 2 developed contralateral side SCFE during follow-up, and group 3 had unilateral SCFE until final follow-up. Three patients who received prophylactic pinning were excluded. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were performed. Results: Overall, 93% (50/54) of hips underwent positional reduction and in situ fixation and 7.4% (4/54) underwent open reduction. Mean follow-up period was 4.8 (0.5–25) years. Groups 1, 2, and 3 had 7, 3, and 31 cases, respectively. Sex, age, and follow-up period showed no significant differences among the groups. The Rohrer index was significantly higher in group 1, the affected side posterior sloping angle (PSA) was significantly higher in group 3, and the contralateral side PSA and percentage with endocrinopathy were significantly higher in group 2. In multivariate logistic analysis, age, sex, Rohrer index, affected side PSA, and endocrinopathy were significantly correlated with bilateral SCFE. Conclusion: We recommend prophylactic contralateral side pinning in patients with risk factors of obesity, high PSA before slipping, and endocrinopathy. Careful observation until growth plate closure is required in patients without risk factors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6877918 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | The Japanese Association of Rural Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68779182019-11-29 Prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped capital femoral epiphysis Tomaru, Yohei Kamada, Hiroshi Tsukagoshi, Yuta Nakagawa, Shogo Onishi, Mio Tanaka, Kenta Takeuchi, Ryoko Mataki, Yuki Miyakawa, Shumpei Yamazaki, Masashi J Rural Med Original Article Background: The use of prophylactic contralateral pinning for slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcome of SCFE treatment and examined the use of prophylactic pinning. Methods: The study included 44 patients (33 men, 11 women; 54 hips [right, 31; left, 23]), with mean age of 12.9 (7.3–29) years, who underwent treatment between 1986 and 2017, with follow-up for more than 6 months. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 had bilateral SCFE at first presentation, group 2 developed contralateral side SCFE during follow-up, and group 3 had unilateral SCFE until final follow-up. Three patients who received prophylactic pinning were excluded. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were performed. Results: Overall, 93% (50/54) of hips underwent positional reduction and in situ fixation and 7.4% (4/54) underwent open reduction. Mean follow-up period was 4.8 (0.5–25) years. Groups 1, 2, and 3 had 7, 3, and 31 cases, respectively. Sex, age, and follow-up period showed no significant differences among the groups. The Rohrer index was significantly higher in group 1, the affected side posterior sloping angle (PSA) was significantly higher in group 3, and the contralateral side PSA and percentage with endocrinopathy were significantly higher in group 2. In multivariate logistic analysis, age, sex, Rohrer index, affected side PSA, and endocrinopathy were significantly correlated with bilateral SCFE. Conclusion: We recommend prophylactic contralateral side pinning in patients with risk factors of obesity, high PSA before slipping, and endocrinopathy. Careful observation until growth plate closure is required in patients without risk factors. The Japanese Association of Rural Medicine 2019-11-20 2019-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6877918/ /pubmed/31788141 http://dx.doi.org/10.2185/jrm.3011 Text en ©2019 The Japanese Association of Rural Medicine This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd) License. (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Tomaru, Yohei Kamada, Hiroshi Tsukagoshi, Yuta Nakagawa, Shogo Onishi, Mio Tanaka, Kenta Takeuchi, Ryoko Mataki, Yuki Miyakawa, Shumpei Yamazaki, Masashi Prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped capital femoral epiphysis |
title | Prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped
capital femoral epiphysis |
title_full | Prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped
capital femoral epiphysis |
title_fullStr | Prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped
capital femoral epiphysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped
capital femoral epiphysis |
title_short | Prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped
capital femoral epiphysis |
title_sort | prophylactic pinning should be considered in patients at risk for slipped
capital femoral epiphysis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6877918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31788141 http://dx.doi.org/10.2185/jrm.3011 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tomaruyohei prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT kamadahiroshi prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT tsukagoshiyuta prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT nakagawashogo prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT onishimio prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT tanakakenta prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT takeuchiryoko prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT matakiyuki prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT miyakawashumpei prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis AT yamazakimasashi prophylacticpinningshouldbeconsideredinpatientsatriskforslippedcapitalfemoralepiphysis |