| Literature DB >> 21589677 |
Mahmoud A Mahran1, Mohamed A Elgebeily, Nabil A M Ghaly, Mootaz F Thakeb, Hany M Hefny.
Abstract
For evaluating pelvic support osteotomy as a salvage procedure in managing neglected hip problems in adolescents and young adults, PSO was performed for 20 hips in 20 patients (5 men and 15 women). The mean age was 21.5 years. The etiology was neglected developmental dysplasia of the hip in 9 patients, post-septic hip sequelae in 9 patients, and paralytic dislocation due to poliomyelitis in 2 patients. All patients were treated by two osteotomies: a proximal femoral osteotomy to support the pelvis and correct the flexion and rotational deformities of the hip and a distal varization and lengthening osteotomy. Final clinical evaluation was done 6 months after frame removal. The mean external fixation time was 6.4. Lengthening and mechanical axis parallelism was achieved in all patients. At the final follow-up and according to a predesigned scoring system, there were 7(35%) excellent results, 6(30%) good results, 7(35%) fair results, and no poor results. Hip reconstruction by Ilizarov's concept can be technically demanding and involving lengthy period wearing the frame but found to be a valuable salvage procedure for numerous neglected hip problems particularly in young patients.Entities:
Keywords: Femoral reconstruction osteotomy; Hip osteotomy; Ilizarov hip reconstruction; Neglected hip dislocation; Neglected hip problems in pediatric age group; Pelvic support femoral reconstruction; Pelvic support osteotomy
Year: 2011 PMID: 21589677 PMCID: PMC3058188 DOI: 10.1007/s11751-011-0104-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr ISSN: 1828-8928
Fig. 1Subtrochanteric femoral osteotomy provides a stable fulcrum (arrow in 1b) for pelvic support, increases abductor lever arm (narrower right–leftarrow 1 in 1b in comparison with arrow 2 in 2b), and retention the pelvifemoral muscles (hip abductors)
Fig. 2Standing AP radiograph from pelvis to ankle for performing Paley’s malalignment test and detecting the amount of LLD
Fig. 3Maximum adduction cross-legged supine radiograph
Fig. 4Extension at the proximal osteotomy
Fig. 5a Paper tracing to plan for the value and level of distal osteotomy with the final situation imitated (b). (PMA = proximal mechanical axis line, DMA = distal mechanical axis line, CORA = level of the second distal femoral osteotomy)
Fig. 6Stable delta configuration of the most distal fixation
Fig. 7A case during dynamization. The frame is left with 4 Schanz pins only
Fig. 8Long film taken at final evaluation
Parameters used in evaluating the results of the patients
| Result category | Parameters |
|---|---|
| Excellent result | No pain (0 on VAS). |
| No LLD. | |
| ROM equal to or better than before surgery. | |
| Negative Trendelenburg sign | |
| Good result | Mild pain (0–3 on VAS). |
| LLD < 2.5 cm. | |
| Reduced hip and/or knee ROM <20°. | |
| Negative or delayed Trendelenburg sign. | |
| Fair result | Moderate pain (4–6 on VAS). |
| LLD > 2.5 cm. | |
| Reduced hip and/or knee ROM between 20 and 30°. | |
| Positive Trendelenburg sign. | |
| Poor result | Continuous and/or sever pain (score 7–10 on VAS). |
| LLD > 5 cm. | |
| Reduced hip and/or knee ROM >30°. | |
| Positive Trendelenburg test. |
Fig. 9Knee flexion at final evaluation