| Literature DB >> 30607206 |
H Kubo1, H Pilge1, J-P Holthoff1, M Hufeland1, B Westhoff1, R Krauspe1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study the course of unstable hips after successful treatment with Fettweis plaster of Paris (POP) is examined. Special focus will be given to age at beginning of treatment and initial hip type.Entities:
Keywords: DDH; Fettweis plaster; hip type; radiograph control; start of treatment
Year: 2018 PMID: 30607206 PMCID: PMC6293336 DOI: 10.1302/1863-2548.12.180132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Child Orthop ISSN: 1863-2521 Impact factor: 1.548
Fig. 1Pelvic radiograph of a two-year-old girl: (a) horizontal line = Hilgenreiner Line; (b) vertical line = Perkins lines; (c) line below the left femoral neck = Shenton Menard line; acetabular angle left (*) and centre edge angle right hip (#), time point: 28 June 2010.
Fig. 2Treatment protocol of unstable hips type D, III and IV with Fettweis plaster.
Fig. 3Comparison of 12 to 24 months versus 24 to 48 months, n = 93, improvement of nine slightly dysplastic hips and two severely dysplastic hips into normal findings, four severely dysplastic hips into slightly dysplastic hips, deterioration of nine normal findings into slightly dysplastic hips and five severely dysplastic hips, eight slightly dysplastic hips into severely dysplastic hips.
Comparison first versus second radiograph based on start of treatment (all hips (n = 93), treatment at eight or less weeks of age (n = 16) and more than eight weeks of age (n = 77)).
| Same level | Improvement | Deterioration | |
| All hips (n = 93) (%) | 56 ( | 15 ( | 22 ( |
| Treatment ≤ 8 wks (n = 16) (%) | 10 ( | 4 ( | 2 ( |
| Treatment > 8 wks (n = 77) (%) | 46 ( | 11 ( | 20 ( |
Fig. 4Comparison of 12 to 24 months versus 24 to 48 months, n = 16, improvement of one slightly dysplastic hip and one severely dysplastic hip into normal findings, two severely dysplastic hips into slightly dysplastic hips, deterioration of two slightly dysplastic hips into severely dysplastic hips.
Fig. 5Comparison of 12 to 24 months versus 24 to 48 months, n = 77, improvement of eight slightly dysplastic hips and one severely dysplastic hip into normal findings, two severely dysplastic hips into slightly dysplastic hips, deterioration of nine normal findings into slightly dysplastic hips and five severely dysplastic hips, six slightly dysplastic hips into severely dysplastic hips.
Fig. 6Comparison of 12 to 24 months versus 24 to 48 months: (a) hip type D: n = 14, improvement of two slightly dysplastic hips into normal findings, deterioration of two normal findings into slightly dysplastic hips, three slightly dysplastic hips into severely dysplastic hips; (b) hip type III: n = 41, improvement of five slightly dysplastic hips and one severely dysplastic hip into normal findings, two severely dysplastic hips into slightly dysplastic hips, deterioration of four normal findings into slightly dysplastic hips and one severely dysplastic hip, three slightly dysplastic hips into severely dysplastic hips; (c) hip type IV: n = 38, improvement of two slightly dysplastic hips and one severely dysplastic hip into normal findings, two severely dysplastic hips into slightly dysplastic hips, deterioration of three normal findings into slightly dysplastic hips and four severely dysplastic hips, two slightly dysplastic hips into severely dysplastic hips.
Fig. 7(a) Pelvic radiograph of a 15-month-old child (initial ultrasound hip type D right and type IV left) with acetabular angle right: 27.9° (1 sd to 2 sd) and left: 31.4° (2 sd), time point 19 August 2013; (b) pelvic radiograph of the same child at 25 months of age with: acetabular angle right: 27.6° (2 sd) and left: 36.3° (2 sd), operative intervention for both sides recommended, time point 16 June 2014.
Comparison first versus second radiograph based on initial hip type (type D (n = 14), type III (n = 41), type IV (n = 38))
| Same level | Improvement | Deterioration | |
| Type D (n = 14) (%) | 7 ( | 2 ( | 5 ( |
| Type III (n = 41) (%) | 25 ( | 8 ( | 8 ( |
| Type IV (n = 38) (%) | 24 ( | 5 ( | 9 ( |
Radiograph results of all patients (n = 93)
| First radiograph | Second radiograph | |
| Normal findings (%) | 36 | 33 |
| Slight dysplasia (%) | 34 | 9 |
| Severe dysplasia (%) | 23 | 30 |
| Normal findings(%) | 6 | 8 |
| Slight dysplasia (%) | 6 | 5 |
| Severe dysplasia (%) | 4 | 3 |
| Normal findings(%) | 30 | 25 |
| Slight dysplasia (%) | 28 | 25 |
| Severe dysplasia (%) | 19 | 27 |