Fig. 6.1
A child with SUFE. A clinical photograph of a child with SUFE, notice the short and externally rotated left leg (mimic fracture neck of femur). Patient was investigated and treated for knee pain
Fig. 6.2
A pelvis x-ray with left slipped upper femoral epiphysis. The x-ray shows a severe slipped upper epiphysis
Although rare, endocrine disorders must be considered in every patient with SUFE. Loder [1] identified two types of SUFE; idiopathic type and atypical type where there is an underlying endocrine disorders or other aetiology. He studied the demographics of 433 patients with 612 SUFEs (285 idiopathic, 148 atypical) and found that weight and age were predictors for atypical SUFE and he recommended the age-weight test: the test was defined as negative when age younger than 16 years and weight ≥50th percentile and positive when beyond these boundaries. The probability of a child with a negative test result having an idiopathic SUFE was 93 %, and the probability of a child with a positive test result having an atypical SCFE was 52 %.
Slipped upper femoral epiphysis was traditionally classified as (1) pre-slip: patient has symptoms with no anatomical displacement of the femoral head, (2) acute: there is an abrupt displacement through the proximal physis with symptoms and signs developing over a short period of time (<3 weeks), (3) Chronic: present with pain in the groin, thigh, and knee of more than 3 weeks, often ranging from months to years and (4) acute on chronic: initially, patient has chronic symptoms, but develops acute symptoms as well following a sudden increase in the degree of slip [2, 3].
However, in a classic paper by Loder [4, 5] a new, clinically more relevant classification was introduced. SUFE was classified based on the patient weight-bearing status into stable when patient is able to ambulate and bear their weight and unstable when patient is unable to ambulate with or without crutches. In his series of 55 SUFEs, Loder showed that avascular necrosis (AVN) developed in 47 % of unstable slips but none of stable hips. However, unintentional reduction of the slip occurred in 26 unstable slips (out of 30) and in only 2 of the stable slips (out of 25). [4]. Several other papers confirmed Loder’s findings [6, 7–9].
Grading the severity of the slip is usually based on the radiographic findings. The Southwick angle is the most commonly used [10]. The angle is measured on the lateral view of the both hips by drawing a line perpendicular to a line connecting the posterior and anterior tips of the epiphysis at the physis. The angle between the perpendicular line and the femoral shaft line is called the lateral epiphyseal shaft angle. The Southwick angle is the difference between the lateral epiphyseal shaft angle of the slipped and the non slipped sides (Fig. 6.3). In patients with bilateral involvement, 12° is subtracted from each of the measured lateral epiphyseal angles. Mild slip (grade I) has an angle difference of less than 30°, moderate slip (grade II) has an angle difference of between 30 and 50 degrees and severe slip has a difference of over 50 degrees.
Fig. 6.3
SUFE radiological grading. The Southwick angle is the difference between the lateral epiphyseal shaft angle of the slipped and the non slipped sides. Mild slip (grade I) has an angle difference of less than 30°, moderate slip (grade II) has an angle difference of between 30° and 50° and severe slip has a difference of over 50°
Treatment aim is to prevent progression of the slip without complications. Reduction of the slip to near anatomical position is desirable but this is tempered by the higher risk of AVN and chondrolysis (CL) which are surrogates for bad outcomes. The choice of treatment depends on the type of slip, its severity, and surgical expertise.
What Is the Best Treatment for a Stable Slip?
There is a consensus that the best treatment for mild and most moderate stable slip is pinning-in-situ (PIS) using a single cannulated screw (SS). This has been supported by a comprehensive review paper by Loder [11]. If the slip is severe, pinning can be technically difficult. Gentle reduction is often unsuccessful in a stable slip and forceful reduction is contraindicated as this increase the risk of AVN. The options are either PIS with re-alignment procedure later if remodeling is suboptimum or primary corrective osteotomy.
Realignment procedures can be performed at one of three levels: subcapital, femoral neck and intertrochanteric region. The ability to correct a deformity is greatest with subcapital osteotomy (where the CORA is), least with an intertrochanteric osteotomy. The risk of AVN is the highest with subcapital osteotomy and the lowest with intertrochanteric osteotomy.
We performed an extensive literature search for the best available evidence to support various treatments of stable slips. We could not find level I or II evidence. There were 16 comparative studies and several case series with a follow-up more than a year. With a few exceptions all these studies were unmatched; mild and moderate slips were treated with pinning whereas severe slips were treated with reduction (either close or open reduction) and stabilisation undermining the comparison between pinning in situ and reduction.
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show that pinning using a single screw has the lowest rates of AVN and chondrolysis (CL) and even a better patient’s satisfaction when compared with traditional corrective osteotomies namely Dunn’s and Fish osteotomies. One point needs further emphasis that patient who had corrective osteotomies were more likely to have severe slips and their outcomes are less favourable anyway.
Table 6.1
Pooled summary of studies of stable slips treatments
Intervention | Hips | AVN (%) | CL (%) | Satisfactory patients resulta |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hip spica | 101 | 8 (7.9 %) | 21 (20.8 %) | NR |
Epiphysiodesis | 485 | 14(2.9 %) | 8 (1.6 %) | 67 (67 %) excellent 6 (6 %) good 10 (10 %) fair 7 (7 %) poor 7 (7 %) failure |
Pinning using single screw | 525 | 8(1.5 %) | 12 (2.3 %) | 113 (47 %) excellent 86 (36 %) good 19 (8 %) fair 10 (4 %) poor 11 (5 %) failure |
Pinning using multiple pins | 273 | 6(2.2 %) | 11(4 %) | 76 (67 %) excellent 19 (17 %) good 0 (0 %) fair 16 (14 %) poor 3 (3 %) failure |
Physeal osteotomy | 545 | 63(11.6 %) | 51 (9.4 %) | 131 (28 %) excellent 210 (45 %) good 46 (10 %) fair 72 (16 %) poor 3 (6 %) failure |
Ganz surgical dislocation | 81 | 3(3.7 %) | 2 (2.5 %) | 52 (87 %) excellent 2 (3 %) good 0 (0 %) fair 5 (8 %) poor 1 (2 %) failure |
Base of neck osteotomy | 92 | 2(2.1 %) | 6 (6.5 %) | 22 (60 %) excellent 11 (30 %) good 2 (5 %) fair 2 (5 %) poor |
Inter-trochanteric osteotomy | 336 | 5 (1.5) | 16 (4.8 %) | 121 (44 %) excellent 105 (38 %) good 35 (13 %) fair 15 (5 %) poor |
Table 6.2
studies of various interventions in stable slips
Study | Rx | Patients | Hips | AVN | CL | FAI | OA | Patient satisfaction | Others | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hip Spica | ||||||||||
Betz [12] | Spica | 32 | 37 | 0 | 5 | NR | NR | NR | 0 acute, 8 acute on chronic and 29 chronic 25 mild, 7 moderate and 5 severe All stable slips | |
Carney (Carney et al. [13]) | Spica | 47 | 8 | 6 | IHS for chronic slips 81 and 71for acute slips | 4 acute and 43 chronic. Spica with closed reduction (16 hips) resulted in a mean IHS of 65 points, 6 AVN and 2 CL. Spica cast without reduction (26) resulted in a mean IHS of 83 points, 2 AVN and 4 CL. | ||||
Meier (Meier et al. [14]) | Spica | 13 | 17 | NR | 10 | NR | 9 | NR | 3 pressure sores 3 Further slipping | |
Total | NA | 101 | 8 | 21 | ||||||
Epiphysiodesis | ||||||||||
Adamczyk (Adamczyk et al. [15]) | Epi | 225 (+43) | 278 (+45) | 4 (+3) | 0 (+1) | NR | NR | NR | 17 further slipping (+6) 4 deep infection 12 re-operation | 45 acute, 0 acute on chronic and 278 chronic Outcomes of acute slips are bracketed |
Rao (Rao, et al. [16]) | Epi | 43 | 46 | 3 | 2 | NR | NR | NR | 3 infections 7 cases of transient anterolateral thigh hypesthesia 44 hetertopic ossification. | 18 unstable (excluded) and 46 stable slips. The average operating time and blood loss per hip were 122 ± ?4 min and 426 ± 238 ml, respectively. |
Schmidt (Schmidt et al. [17]) | Epi | 33 | 40 | 1 | 1 | NR | NR | HHS 35 excellent 1 good 2 fair 2 poor | 1 femoral neck fracture 1 subt-rochanteric hip fracture 2 coxa vara | 31 mild, 9 moderate, 0 severe. 6 unstable and 34 were stable. The average time 1 h 57 min and blood loss averaged 360 ml. |
Szypryt (Szypryt et al. [18]) | Epi | 25 | 30 | 2 | 3 | NR | 7 | MSC 12 excellent 5 good 8fair 4 poor | 3 wound infection | 1 acute, 13acute-on-chronic, 16 chronic. 0 mild, 12 moderate, 18 severe |
Zahrawi (Zahrawi et al. [19]) | Epi | 28 | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | HHC 20 excellent 0 good 0 fair 1 poor 7 failure | 4 wound infection 2 graft failure 1 further slipping 6 needed further surgery | Severity (mean slip angle 30) LOS 21 Duration of surgery 150 min Blood loss 500 ml | |
Total | NA | 467 | 13 | 7 | 67 (67 %) excellent 6 (6 %) good 10 (10 %) fair 7 (7 %) poor 7 (7 %) failure | |||||
Pinning Using Screws | ||||||||||
Alshryda (Alshryda et al. [7]) | Pinning(PIS) (SS) | 36 | 36 | 1 | 1 | NR | NR | NR | 1 loss of fixation | Unstable and uncertain hips were excluded |
Aronson [20] | Pinning(PIS) (SS) | 34 | 43 | 1 | 0 | NR | 1 | HHC 27 excellent 12 good 2 fair 2 poor | 2 loss of fixation 1 Sub-trochanteric fracture 2 failed screw removals | 6 acute and 37chronic. 27 mild, 8 moderate and 8 severe |
Aronson [21] | Pinning(PIS) (SS) | 44 | 58 | 1 | 0 | NR | 1 | HHC 33 excellent 21 good 2 fair 2 poor | 2 loss of fixation 1 Sub trochanteric fracture No further slipping. | 8 acute, 0 acute-on-chronic, and 50 chronic. 38 mild, 10 moderate and 10 severe. |
Blanco (Blanco et al. [22]) | Pinning (PIS) (SS) | 80 | 43 | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | 2 Metalware problems 1 reoperation | 1 acute, 6 acute on chronic, 36 chronic 23 mild, 12 moderate, 8 severe 1 CRIF |
Carlioz [88] | Pinning (PIS) (SS) | 34 | 38 | 0 | 2 | NR | NR | 31 good 10 fair 2 bad 3 Failure | 1 Sub-trochanteric fracture | 6 patients underwent reduction (1 AVN excluded). Authors did not use “Excellent” in outcomes |
Gonzalez-Moran (Gonzalez-Moran et al. [23]) | Pinning (PIS) (SS) | 25 | 31 | 1 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | 1 wound infection 3 metalware problems | All received two weeks of skin longitudinal traction then pinning in situ without manipulation 22 case had a single screw and 9 had 2 screws 11 acute, 6 acute on chronic and 14 chronic 1 preslip, 17 mild, 11 moderate and 2 severe |
Herman (Herman et al. [24]) | Pinning(PIS) (SS) | 11 | 11 | 0 | 1 | NR | NR | HHS (95 points) 11 excellent 0 good 0fair 0 poor | No further slipping. | 4 acute, 11 acute-on-chronic, and 6 chronic. |
Kenny [25] | Pinning(PIS) (SS) | 40 | 53 | 0 | 1 | NR | 1 | HHC (31)58 % excellent (19)36 % good (2)4 % fair (1)2 % a poor | 1 Sub-trochanteric fracture No further slipping. | 3 acute, 8 acute-on-chronic and 35 chronic. 80 % mild, 12 % moderate and 2 % severe |
Koval [26] | Pinning(PIS) (SS) | 49 | 67 | 2 | 7 | NR | 2 | NR | 1 Growing off fixation 1 Stress fracture of the femoral neck | 12 acute, 1 acute-on-chronic, 67 chronic. 55 mild, 19 moderate and 6 severe. 3 CRIF ( 1AVN) |
Lim (Lim et al. [27]) | Pinning (PIS) (SS) | 13 | 13 | 1 | 0 | Aadalen criteria 8excellent 2good 2fair 0 poor 1failure | All underwent preoperative traction All acute or acute on chronic Severity: mean 30° (range 0°-60°). | |||
Novais (Novais et al. [28]) | Pinning (PIS) (SS) | 15 | 15 | 1 | HHC 3 excellent 1good 1fair 3 poor 7failure | 2 metalware problems 1 further slipping | All patients had stable severe slip revealed better deformity correction with the modified Dunn procedure compared with in situ pinning | |||
Souder (Souder et al. [29]) | Pinning (PIS) (SS) | 64 | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | 3 metalware problems 1 infection 1 further slipping | Ganz surgical dislocation 7 Unstable cause 3 AVN excluded | |
Ward (Ward et al. [30]) | Pinning(PIS) (SS) | 42 | 53 | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | Neither chondrolysis nor avascular necrosis developed. 1 HO 2 Metalware problems | 2 acute, 3 acute-on-chronic and 48 chronic. 19 mild, 25 moderate and 9 severe 5 CRIF |
Total (%) | NA | 525 | 8 | 12 | NA | 0.02 % | 113 (47 %) excellent 86 (36 %) good 19 (8 %) fair 10 (4 %) poor 11 (5 %) failure | |||
Pinning Using Multiple Pins | ||||||||||
Aronson [20] | Pinning (MPF) | 39 | 54 | 2 | 3 | NR | 18 | HHC 27 excellent 13 good 0 fair 13 poor 1Failure | 13 patients had pin protruded through the back of the neck | 4 acute and 50 chronic. 34 mild, 14 moderate and 6 severe |
Blanco (Blanco et al. [22]) | Pinning (MPF) | 25 | 1 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | 8 Metalware problems 1 Growing off 4 reoperation | 1 Preslip, 4 acute, 6 acute on chronic, 12 chronic 11 mild, 9 moderate, 4 severe. 7 CRIF | |
Carney (Carney et al. [13]) | Pinning (MPF) | 37 | 3 | 1 | NR | NR | IHS for chronic slips 86 and 93 for acute slips | 3 acute and 34 chronic. Reduction and pinning resulted in a mean ISH of 75 points, 2 AVN, 1 CL. pinning in situ resulted in a mean IHS of 85 points, 1 AVN, 0 CL. | ||
Dreghorn (Dreghorn et al. [31]) | PIS (MPF) | 66 | 0 | 2 | NR | 0 | NR | 1 Growing off fixation | 51 mild, 14 moderate and 1 severe | |
Gonzalez-Moran (Gonzalez-Moran et al. [23]) | Pinning (MPF) | 28 | 31 | 0 | 3 | NR | NR | NR | 4 wound infection 9 metalware problems | 1 acute, 4 acute on chronic and 26 chronic 0 preslip, 15 mild, 12 moderate and 4 severe |
Zahrawi (Zahrawi et al. [19]) | PIS (MPF) | 60 | 0 | 2 | NR | NR | HHC 49 excellent 6 good 0 fair 3 poor 2 failure | 2 metalware problems 1 further slipping 3 wound infection 2 needed further surgery | Severity (mean slip angle 22) Chronicity and stability NR LOS 17 Duration of surgery 90 min Blood loss 250 ml | |
Total | 273 | 6 | 11 | 76 (67 %) excellent 19 (17 %) good 0 (0 %) fair 16 (14 %) poor 3 (3 %) failure | ||||||
Physeal Osteotomy | ||||||||||
Alshryda (Alshryda et al. [7]) | PO | 7 | 7 | 2 | 1 | NR | NR | NR | Hip dislocation | 15 unstable hips were excluded (5 AVN) |
Barros [32] | PO | 23 | 23 | 3 | 2 | NR | NR | MSC 9 excellent 9 good 1 fair 4poor | 1 metalware problem 0 infection | 0 acute, 3 acute-on-chronic, 20 chronic. 0 mild, 0 moderate, 23 severe |
Broughton (Broughton et al. [33]) | PO | 115 | 115 | 14 | 14 | 1 | 17 | Overall 67 good 9fair 19poor | 0 acute, 38 acute-on-chronic, 77 chronic. 0 mild, 15 moderate, 100 severe Patients satisfaction (G/F/B) in the acute-on-chronic (27/5/6); in the chronic with open growth plate (59/3/8) in the chronic slip with closed growth plate (1/1/5). | |
Carlioz [88] | PO | 26 | 27 | 0 | 3 | NR | NR | 20 good 3 fair 4 bad 3 Failure | Septic arthritis | |
Carney (Carney et al. [13]) | PO | 14 | 3 | 6 | NR | NR | IHS for chronic slips 76 and 50 for acute slips | 26 moderate or severe slips | ||
DeRosa(DeRosa et al. [34]) | PO | 23 | 27 | 4 | 8 | NR | NR | MSC 0 excellent 19 good 4fair 4poor | 2 loss of fixation | 1 CRIF before PO went into AVN 0 mild, 0 moderate, 27severe |
Dreghorn (Dreghorn et al. [31]) | PO | 3 | 1 | 0 | NR | 0 | NR | 1 wound infection | 0 mild, 5 moderate and 6 severe | |
Diab (Diab et al. [35]) | PO | 11 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 1 | NR | NR | ||
Dunn [36] | PO | 69 | 73 | 9 | 3 | NR | 2 | 55 good 6 fair 12 poor | Several hips were manipulated under GA somewhere else (CRIF) 0 acute, 33 acute-on-chronic, 40 chronic. | |
Fish [37] | PO | 61 | 66 | 3 | 1 | NR | 6 | 55 excellent 6 good 2fair 3poor | 0 acute, 16 acute-on-chronic, 50 chronic. Chronic slips (0 mild, 23 moderate, 27 severe) | |
Fron (Fron et al. [38]) | PO | 46 | 50 | 6 | 3 | NR | NR | 34 excellent 10 good 2fair 4 poor | 2 hematomas 2 infections 3 pseudarthroses of the greater trochanter 1 HO | 0 acute, 17 acute-on-chronic, 30 chronic. 0 mild, 0 moderate, 50 severe |
Jerre [39] | PO | 22 | 22 | 5 | 1 | NR | 6 | HHC 5 excellent 4 good 1 fair 8 poor | 4 THR 1 Hip arthrodesis | 1 acute, 1 acute-on-chronic, 20 chronic. 10 mild, 6 moderate, 0 severe, 6 none |
Nishiyama [40] | PO | 15 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 13 excellent 1good 1 fair 0poor | 0 acute, 0 acute-on-chronic, 18 chronic. 0 mild, 0 moderate, 18 severe | |||
Szypryt (Szypryt et al. [18]) | PO | 23 | 23 | 4 | 0 | NR | 5 | MSC 15 excellent 2 good 1fair 4 poor | 2 wound infection Metalware problems 10 | 1 acute, 16 acute-on-chronic, 6 chronic. 0 mild, 0 moderate, 23 severe |
Velasco (Velasco et al. [41]) | PO | 65 | 66 | 6 | 8 | 22 good 16 moderate (fair) 10 poor | 8 acute, 29 acute-on-chronic, 29 chronic. All moderate or severe (although table II showed that angles <30° in 5 hips) Full set data in 48 hips | |||
Total | 545 | 63 | 51 | 131 (28 %) excellent 210 (45 %) good 46 (10 %) fair 72 (16 %) poor 3 (6 %) failure | ||||||
Ganz Surgical Dislocation | ||||||||||
Madan (Madan et al. [42]) | PO/G | 11 | 11 | 0 | 1 | NR
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channelFull access? Get Clinical TreeGet Clinical Tree app for offline access |