| Literature DB >> 25907982 |
Haluk Agus1, Burak Önvural, Cemal Kazimoglu, Ali Reisoglu, Onder Kalenderer.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25907982 PMCID: PMC4513608 DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1037222
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Orthop ISSN: 1745-3674 Impact factor: 3.717
Patient characteristics
| Patient | Sex | Age | Medial hemi-epiphysodesis age (years) | First operation | Follow-up period years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group | |||||
| 1 | F | 18 | 7.7 | Medial open reduction | 11 |
| 2 | M | 15 | 6.9 | Femoral + pelvic osteotomy | 7.6 |
| 3 | F | 13 | 10.2 | Femoral + pelvic osteotomy | 2.5 |
| 4 | F | 15 | 6.6 | Femoral + pelvic osteotomy | 7.9 |
| 5 | F | 12 | 8.7 | Medial open reduction | 3.1 |
| 6 | F | 17 | 9.1 | Medial open reduction | 8.1 |
| 7 | F | 14 | 8.3 | Medial open reduction | 5.5 |
| 8 | F | 13 | 10.5 | Femoral + pelvic osteotomy | 2.1 |
| 9 | F | 10 | 6 | Medial open reduction | 3.3 |
| Mean | 14.1 | 8.2 | 5.7 | ||
| Control group | |||||
| 1 | F | 12 | – | Medial open reduction | 8 |
| 2 | F | 13 | – | Medial open reduction | 10 |
| 3 | F | 9 | – | Medial open reduction | 2 |
| 4 | F | 13 | – | Medial open reduction | 9 |
| 5 | F | 12 | – | Medial open reduction | 9 |
| 6 | F | 11 | – | Medial open reduction | 9 |
| 7 | F | 13 | – | Medial open reduction | 11 |
| 8 | F | 11 | – | Medial open reduction | 11 |
| 9 | M | 13 | – | Medial open reduction | 10 |
| 10 | F | 9 | – | Medial open reduction | 4 |
| Mean | 11.6 | – | 8.3 |
Radiological measurements
| Patients | Operated hip | CE angle | Epiphyseal inclination angle | Articulotrochanteric distance, mm | Head-shaft angle | Leg length inequality, mm | McKay clinical classification | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop. | Postop. | Preop. | Postop. | Preop. | Postop. | Preop. | Postop. | ||||
| Study group | |||||||||||
| 1 | R | 10 | 25 | 0 | 18 | 29 | 33 | 150 | 126 | 5 | Excellent |
| 2 | R | 18 | 27 | 3 | 13 | 55 | 30 | 150 | 158 | 6 | Excellent |
| 3 | R | 25 | 25 | 4 | 11 | 27 | 35 | 160 | 160 | 5 (Left) | Excellent |
| L | 35 | 42 | 12 | 32 | 30 | 32 | 150 | 145 | 0 | Excellent | |
| 4 | R | 32 | 32 | 2 | 29 | 26 | 21 | 152 | 141 | 10 | Excellent |
| 5 | R | 19 | 25 | 6 | 6 | 36 | 40 | 153 | 148 | 12 | Excellent |
| 6 | R | 11 | 13 | 11 | 32 | 27 | 27 | 152 | 138 | 20 | Excellent |
| 7 | R | 24 | 20 | 5 | 13 | 39 | 30 | 146 | 144 | 0 | Excellent |
| 8 | R | 22 | 32 | 11 | 9 | 31 | 35 | 157 | 153 | 0 | Excellent |
| L | 26 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 29 | 160 | 148 | 0 | Excellent | |
| 9 | L | 18 | 22 | 10 | 24 | 31 | 17 | 162 | 152 | 17 | Excellent |
| Mean | 21.8 | 26.5 | 5.8 | 17.0 | 32.7 | 29.9 | 153.8 | 146.6 | 8.3 | ||
| Median | 22 | 25 | 5 | 13 | 30 | 30 | 152 | 148 | 5 | ||
| Control group | |||||||||||
| 1 | L | 25 | 30 | 5 | 12 | – | 21 | – | 155 | 0 | Excellent |
| 2 | L | 6 | 8 | 6 | 11 | – | 15 | – | 140 | 5 | Excellent |
| 3 | L | 10 | 13 | 6 | 10 | – | 25 | – | 157 | 5 | Excellent |
| 4 | R | 18 | 25 | 4 | 10 | – | 19 | – | 159 | 2 | Good |
| 5 | R | 10 | 16 | 10 | 16 | – | 14 | – | 138 | 3 | Excellent |
| L | 0 | −7 | 12 | 14 | – | 12 | – | 145 | 0 | Good | |
| 6 | L | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | – | 17 | – | 151 | 0 | Excellent |
| 7 | R | 20 | 35 | 10 | 14 | – | 15 | – | 135 | 0 | Excellent |
| L | 10 | 16 | 6 | 8 | – | 17 | – | 145 | 0 | Excellent | |
| 8 | L | 10 | 18 | 10 | 10 | – | 12 | – | 146 | 2 | Excellent |
| 9 | R | 12 | 15 | 5 | 10 | – | 26 | – | 148 | 0 | Excellent |
| 10 | R | 15 | 21 | 9 | 13 | – | 23 | – | 151 | 0 | Excellent |
| Mean | 12.2 | 16.7 | 7.6 | 11.3 | – | 18.0 | – | 147.5 | 1.7 | ||
| Median | 10 | 16 | 7 | 10.5 | – | 17 | – | 147 | 0 | ||
Figure 1.Peroperative percutaneous medial hemi-epiphysiodesis technique.
Figure 2.Preoperative epiphyseal and acetabular coverage angles in a bilateral type-II AVN patient.
Figure 3.Postoperative epiphyseal and acetabular coverage angles in the same bilateral type-II AVN patient. There is significant correction on the left side.