| Literature DB >> 33204345 |
Arash Ghaffari1, Søren Kold1, Ole Rahbek1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Double and triple femoral neck lengthening osteotomies have been described to correct coxa brevis deformity. Only small studies reported the results. Our aim was to provide an overview of the outcomes of double and triple femoral neck lengthening.Entities:
Keywords: Coxa brevis; Morscher osteotomy; femoral neck lengthening; hip dysplasia; proximal femoral osteotomy
Year: 2020 PMID: 33204345 PMCID: PMC7666796 DOI: 10.1302/1863-2548.14.200163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Child Orthop ISSN: 1863-2521 Impact factor: 1.548
Fig. 1Femoral neck lengthening osteotomies: (a) Proximal femoral triple osteotomy,[16] (b) proximal femoral double osteotomy.[9]
Fig. 2Radiographic criteria in pelvic radiograph from a 14-year-old male with 2 cm limb length discrepancy (LLD) after Perthes disease at the age of six years: (a) Articulo-trochantric distance (ATD) is defined as the vertical distance between the highest part of articular surface of the femoral head and the tip of the greater trochanter. Normal ATD in the right hip (green double arrow), the value is negative when the tip of the greater trochanter is above the most cephalic portion of the femoral head (red double arrow).[24] (b) Centro-trochanteric distance (CTD) is the vertical distance between the centre of the femoral head and the tip of the greater trochanter. The value should normally be zero, as the centre of femoral head and tip of greater trochanter lie at the same level (right hip), CTD is abnormal in the left hip (red double arrow).[24] (c) Lever arm ratio (LAR) is the ratio of the horizontal distance between the centre of the femoral head and the pubic symphysis (L) to the distance between the centre of the femoral head and the top of the greater trochanter (D) (LAR = L/D).[21] (d) Neck-shaft angle (NSA): the angle formed between femoral shaft axis and femoral neck. Normal NSA is 125° to 131°.[40]
Black classification for complications[14]
| Category | Definition |
|---|---|
|
| Minimal intervention required; treatment goal still achieved |
|
| Substantial change in treatment plan; treatment goal still achieved |
|
| Failure to achieve treatment goal; no new pathology or permanent sequelae |
|
| Failure to achieve treatment goal and/or new pathology or permanent sequelae developed |
Fig. 3PRISMA flowchart.
Demographic data of the articles reporting double and triple osteotomies
| Type of intervention | Double osteotomy | Triple osteotomy | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (range, years) | 14(7–36) | 24 (8–52) | 20 (7–52) | |
| Sex | Male | 6 | 39 | 45 |
| Female | 9 | 82 | 91 | |
| Unknown | 7 | 0 | 7 | |
| Etiology | DDH | 9 | 64 | 73 |
| LCPD | 7 | 32 | 39 | |
| Septic | 2 | 6 | 8 | |
| Post-trauma | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| Idiopatic | 0 | 5 | 5 | |
| Congenital | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
| SCFE | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Unknown | 0 | 8 | 8 | |
| Total | 22 | 121 | 143 | |
DDH, developmental dysplasia of the hip; LCPD, Legg–Calve–Perthes disease; SCFE, slipped capital femoral epiphysis
Fig. 4Column scatter plot, demonstrating the distribution of average limb length discrepancies before and after the operation.
Fig. 5Column scatter plot, demonstrating the distribution of positive Trendelenburg test percentage, before and after the osteotomy.
Overall outcomes of reviewed studies
| Author | Year of publication | Number of the patients | Number of the hips | Limb lengthening (mm) | Abductor improvement | HHS | Merle d’Aubigné (Pre-op–Post-op) | Follow-up (range, months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eidelman et al[ | 2019 | 18 | 20 | 13 | 70 | (73–95) | N/A | 84 (54–120) |
| Plazcek et al | 2018 | 5 | 5 | N/A | 100 | N/A | N/A | (3–6) |
| Libri et al[ | 2010 | 5 | 6 | 15 | N/A | (83–94) | N/A | N/A |
| Lengsfeld et al[ | 2001 | 15 | 15 | 6 | 75 | N/A | (7–9)[ | 122 (102–147) |
| Hasler et al[ | 1999 | 37 | 37 | 10 | 70 | N/A | (16–17) | 96 (12–192) |
| Takata et al[ | 1999 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 83 | N/A | (13–17) | 71 |
| Weissinger et al[ | 1995 | 8 | 8 | 19 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 45 (13–76) |
| Dostal et al | 1994 | 8 | 8 | 20 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Hefti et al[ | 1989 | 20 | 21 | 10 | 29 | N/A | N/A | 36 (6–72) |
| Buess et al[ | 1988 | 15 | 16 | 12.5 | 67 | N/A | (13–15) | 62 (9–84) |
| Lascombes et al[ | 1985 | 5 | 5 | 15 | N/A | N/A | N/A | (12–36) |
| Sum | 143 | 149 | ||||||
| Average | 12 | 65 | (78–94) | (14–17) | 74 (3–192) |
Success rate in converting a positive Trendelenburg test to negative
Harris Hip Score
Sum of ‘pain’ and ‘ability to walk’ scores