Femoral Lengthening in Children: A Comparison of Motorized Intramedullary Nailing Versus External Fixation Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Femoral lengthening is associated with high complication rates often related to the type of surgical device used to perform the lengthening. The advent of intramedullary lengthening devices has promised a reduction in complications when compared with external fixation systems. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of femoral lengthening in children using a motorized intramedullary nail (Precice) versus an external fixation system (Taylor Spatial Frame-TSF; or Monolateral Rail System-MRS) at a single institution, single surgeon practice. METHODS: This study is a retrospective comparison of pediatric patients who had previously undergone femoral lengthening (±deformity correction). Patients ages 8 to 18 years of age were included and grouped based on whether they had undergone Precice nailing or external fixation (TSF or MRS) between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (32 femurs) were included. Thirteen patients (15 femurs) had undergone Precice nailing and 14 patients (17 femurs) had undergone external fixation. The Precice group had significantly fewer problems, obstacles, and complications than the external fixation group, Precice 6.6%, 0%, 0%, respectively, and external fixation 47.1%, 29.4%, 0% respectively (P<0.01). Unplanned return to the operating room occurred in 4 cases, solely in the external fixation group. There were no differences in percentage of goal length achieved, Precice (mean 93.6%, range: 66.7% to 114.3%), external fixation (mean 96%, range: 76.9% to 117.5%) P=0.31 and total length achieved, Precice (mean: 44 mm, range: 20 to 80 mm), external fixation (mean: 46 mm, range: 10 to 70 mm) P=0.72. There was no difference in consolidation index, Precice (24.1 d/cm), external fixation (28.5 d/cm) P=0.36. The Precice group had a significantly shorter length of stay (mean: 2.2 d, range: 1 to 4 d), compared with the external fixation group (mean: 3.7 d, range: 2 to 8), P=0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral lengthening in children using a motorized intramedullary nail was associated with a markedly reduced rate of complications and shorter length of stay compared with external fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

A comprehensive nonoperative treatment protocol for developmental dysplasia of the hip in infants.

Aims: Brace treatment is the cornerstone of managing developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), yet there is a lack of evidence-based treatment protocols, which results in wide variations in practice. To resolve this, we have developed a comprehensive nonoperative treatment protocol conforming to published consensus principles, with well-defined a priori criteria for inclusion and successful treatment. Methods: This was a single-centre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of a consecutive series of infants with ultrasound-confirmed DDH who underwent a comprehensive nonoperative brace management protocol in a unified multidisciplinary clinic between January 2012 and December 2016 with five-year follow-up radiographs. The radiological outcomes were acetabular index-lateral edge (AI-L), acetabular index-sourcil (AI-S), centre-edge angle (CEA), acetabular depth ratio (ADR), International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI) grade, and evidence of avascular necrosis (AVN). At five years, each hip was classified as normal (< 1 SD), borderline dysplastic (1 to 2 SDs), or dysplastic (> 2 SDs) based on validated radiological norm-referenced values. Results: Of 993 infants assessed clinically and sonographically, 21% (212 infants, 354 abnormal hips) had DDH and were included. Of these, 95% (202 infants, 335 hips) successfully completed bracing, and 5% (ten infants, 19 hips) failed bracing due to irreducible hip(s). The success rate of bracing for unilateral dislocations was 88% (45/51 infants) and for bilateral dislocations 83% (20/24 infants). The femoral nerve palsy rate was 1% (2/212 infants). At five-year follow-up (mean 63 months (SD 5.9; 49 to 83)) the prevalence of residual dysplasia after successful brace treatment was 1.6% (5/312 hips). All hips were IHDI grade I and none had AVN. Four children (4/186; 2%) subsequently underwent surgery for residual dysplasia. Conclusion: Our comprehensive protocol for nonoperative treatment of infant DDH has shown high rates of success and extremely low rates of residual dysplasia at a mean age of five years.

Testing of an Ultrasound-Limited Imaging Protocol for Pavlik harness Supervision (TULIPPS) in developmental dysplasia of the hip: a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: There is no consensus regarding optimum timing and frequency of ultrasound (US) for monitoring response to Pavlik harness (PH) treatment in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The purpose of our study was to determine if a limited-frequency hip US assessment had an adverse effect on treatment outcomes compared to traditional comprehensive US monitoring. METHODS: This study was a single-centre noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Infants aged under six months whose hips were reduced and centred in the harness at initiation of treatment (stable dysplastic or subluxable), or initially decentred (subluxated or dislocated) but reduced and centred within four weeks of PH treatment, were randomized to our current standard US monitoring protocol (every clinic visit) or to a limited-frequency US protocol (US only at end of treatment). Groups were compared based on α angle and femoral head coverage at the end of PH treatment, acetabular indices, and International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI) grade on one-year follow-up radiographs. RESULTS: Overall, 100 patients were included; 42 patients completed the standard protocol (SP) and 40 completed the limited protocol (LP). There was no significant difference in mean right α angle at the end of treatment (SP 70.0° (SD 3.2°) ; LP 68.7° (SD 2.9°); p = 0.033), nor on the left (SP 69.0° (SD 3.5°); LP 68.1° (SD 3.3°); p = 0.128). There was no significant difference in mean right acetabular index at follow-up (SP 23.1° (SD 4.3°); LP 22.0° (SD 4.1°); p = 0.129), nor on the left (SP 23.3° (SD 4.2°); LP 22.8° (SD 3.9°); p = 0.284). All hips had femoral head coverage of > 50% at end of treatment, and all were IHDI grade 1 at follow-up. In addition, the LP group underwent a 60% reduction in US use once stable. CONCLUSION: Our study supports reducing the frequency of US assessment during PH treatment of DDH once a hip is reduced and centred.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1081-1088.

The lateral edge and sourcil acetabular indices for surgical decision-making in developmental dysplasia of the hip.

PURPOSE: The acetabular index (AI) is a radiographic measure that guides surgical decision-making in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Two AI measurement methods are described; to the lateral edge of the acetabulum (AI-L) and to the lateral edge of the sourcil (AI-S). The purpose of this study was to determine the level of agreement between AI-L and AI-S on the diagnosis and degree of acetabular dysplasia in DDH. METHODS: A total of 35 patients treated for DDH with Pavlik harness were identified. The AI-L and AI-S were measured on radiographs (70 hips) at two and five years of age. AI-L and AI-S were then transformed relative to published normative data (tAI-L and tAI-S). Bland-Altman plots, linear regression and heat mapping were used to evaluate the agreement between tAI-L and tAI-S. RESULTS: There was poor agreement between tAI-S and tAI-L on the Bland-Altman plots with wide limits of agreement and no proportional bias. The two AI measurements were in agreement as to the presence and severity of dysplasia in only 63% of hips at two years of age and 81% at five years of age, leaving the remaining hips classified as various combinations of normal, mildly and severely dysplastic. CONCLUSION: AI-L and AI-S have poor agreement on the presence or degree of acetabular dysplasia in DDH and cannot be used interchangeably. Clinicians are cautioned to prudently evaluate both measures of AI in surgical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.