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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tomaru, Yohei, Kamada, Hiroshi, Tsukagoshi, Yuta, Nakagawa, Shogo, Onishi, Mio, Tanaka, Kenta, Takeuchi, Ryoko, Mataki, Yuki, Miyakawa, Shumpei, Yamazaki, Masashi
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