Evidence-Based Treatment for Slipped Upper Femoral Epiphysis



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



A328329_1_En_6_Fig2_HTML.gif


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, 79].

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.

A328329_1_En_6_Fig3_HTML.gif


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


aSatisfactory patients result based on closely related rating such as Heyman and Herndon classification, Harris hip score or Iowa hip scores.



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

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Apr 7, 2017 | Posted by in ORTHOPEDIC | Comments Off on Evidence-Based Treatment for Slipped Upper Femoral Epiphysis

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access