Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 7, pp 1635–1642 | Cite as

Femoral anteversion does not predict redislocation in children with hip dysplasia treated by closed reduction

  • Kai Hong
  • Zhe Yuan
  • Jingchun Li
  • Yiaiqng Li
  • Xinwang Zhi
  • Yanhan Liu
  • Hongwen Xu
  • Federico CanaveseEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Increased femoral anteversion can be associated with hip instability, redislocation after closed reduction, and subsequent early degenerative arthritis.

Our study compared proximal femoral anteversion of affected and unaffected sides of patients with unilateral developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) on two-dimensional computed tomography. The primary aim was to evaluate whether femoral anteversion at the time of treatment affected the outcome of patients with unilateral DDH treated by closed reduction.

Methods

A retrospective review of 89 patients (82 females; 53 left; mean age: 26.6 months) with unilateral DDH was performed. Anteversion angle (AA) of the femur and acetabular index (AI) of both affected (AAa; AIa) and unaffected (AAu; AIu) hips were measured on two-dimensional CT scan performed no more than seven days prior to the index surgical procedure.

Results

Among the 89 patients, 50 underwent closed reduction (56.2%), 38 underwent open reduction with or without pelvic osteotomy (42.7%), and one patient refused treatment (1.1%). Overall, the mean AAa was 28.1° ± 10.2° (range: 6.3°–54°) and mean AAu was 25.2° ± 9.9° (range: 1.9°–52.5°) (t = 3.2, p = 0.002). Tönnis type 2 hips did not show any statistically significant difference between AAa and AAu (p = 0.386), while Tönnis types 3 and 4 hips had significantly higher AAa than did AAu (t = 3.7, p = 0.001). There were significant correlations between age and AAa (coefficient = 0.4; p < 0.001) and AAu (coefficient = 0.304; p = 0.004). Correlation analysis showed that AIa did not improve with age in any Tönnis group (r: − 0.24, p = 0.823; F = 0.039, p = 0.962).

AAa, AIa, AAD, AID, and Tönnis grade distribution were similar in patients with good (no redislocation) and poor outcomes (redislocation) (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

In patients with unilateral DDH, anteversion angle (AA) was found to be significantly different between affected and unaffected sides. However, the difference had very limited or no clinical significance, as redislocation/sub-luxation was not influenced by AA values.

Keywords

DDH Unilateral Femoral anteversion Acetabular index Closed reduction 

Notes

Funding information

No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

No patients were involved. This is a retrospective study of patient’s data, and an IRB approval was obtained.

References

  1. 1.
    Berkeley ME, Dickson JH, Cain TE, Donovan MM (1984) Surgical therapy for congenital dislocation of the hip in patients who are twelve to thirty-six months old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66(3):412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bicanic G, Delimar D, Delimar M, Pecina M (2009) Influence of the acetabular cup position on hip load during arthroplasty in hip dysplasia. Int Orthop 33(2):397–402.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0683-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Browning WH, Rosenkrantz H, Tarquinio T (1982) Computed tomography in congenital hip dislocation. The role of acetabular anteversion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(1):27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buckley SL, Sponseller PD, Magid D (1991) The acetabulum in congenital and neuromuscular hip instability. J Pediatr Orthop 11(4):498–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li Y, Liu Y, Zhou Q, Chen W, Li J, Yu L et al (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of acetabular orientation in Chinese children. Medicine 95(37):e4878.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duffy CM, Taylor FN, Coleman L, Graham HK, Nattrass GR (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of surgical management in developmental dysplasia of the hip in childhood. J Pediatr Orthop 22(1):92–100Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hernandez RJ, Poznanski AK (1985) CT evaluation of pediatric hip disorders. Orthop Clin North Am 16(3):513–541Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hernandez RJ, Tachdjian MO, Poznanski AK, Dias LS (1981) CT determination of femoral torsion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 137(1):97–101.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.137.1.97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jia J, Li L, Zhang L, Zhao Q, Liu X (2012) Three dimensional-CT evaluation of femoral neck anteversion, acetabular anteversion and combined anteversion in unilateral DDH in an early walking age group. Int Orthop 36(1):119–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1337-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li Y, Guo Y, Li M, Zhou Q, Liu Y, Chen W et al (2018) Acetabular index is the best predictor of late residual dysplasia after closed reduction in DDH. Int Orthop 42(3):631–640.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3726-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li LY, Zhang LJ, Zhao Q, Wang EB (2009) Measurement of acetabular anteversion in developmental dysplasia of the hip in children by two- and three-dimensional computed tomography. J Int Med Res 37(2):567–575.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147323000903700234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yong B, Li Y, Li J, Andreacchio A, Pavone V, Pereia B et al (2018) Post-operative radiograph assessment of children undergoing closed reduction and spica cast immobilization for developmental dysplasia of the hip: does experience matter? Int Orthop.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4038-0
  13. 13.
    Mootha AK, Saini R, Dhillon M, Aggarwal S, Wardak E, Kumar V (2010) Do we need femoral derotation osteotomy in DDH of early walking age group? A clinico-radiological correlation study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(7):853–858.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-1020-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li Y, Xu H, Li J, Yu L, Liu Y, Southern E et al (2015) Early predictors of acetabular growth after closed reduction in late detected developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B 24(1):35–39.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BPB.0000000000000111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mootha AK, Saini R, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Kumar V, Tripathy SK (2010) MRI evaluation of femoral and acetabular anteversion in developmental dysplasia of the hip. A study in an early walking age group. Acta Orthop Belg 76(2):174–180Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sankar WN, Neubuerger CO, Moseley CF (2009) Femoral anteversion in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop 29(8):885–888.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181c1e961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sarban S, Ozturk A, Tabur H, Isikan UE (2005) Anteversion of the acetabulum and femoral neck in early walking age patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B 14(6):410–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sewell MD, Eastwood DM (2011) Screening and treatment in developmental dysplasia of the hip-where do we go from here? Int Orthop 35(9):1359–1367.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1257-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tonnis D (1985) Indications and time planning for operative interventions in hip dysplasia in child and adulthood. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 123(4):458–461Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Bosse HJ, Lee D, Henderson ER, Sala DA, Feldman DS (2011) Pelvic positioning creates error in CT acetabular measurements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(6):1683–1691.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1827-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wenger DR, Lee CS, Kolman B (1995) Derotational femoral shortening for developmental dislocation of the hip: special indications and results in the child younger than 2 years. J Pediatr Orthop 15(6):768–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zadeh HG, Catterall A, Hashemi-Nejad A, Perry RE (2000) Test of stability as an aid to decide the need for osteotomy in association with open reduction in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(1):17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zilber S, Lazennec JY, Gorin M, Saillant G (2004) Variations of caudal, central, and cranial acetabular anteversion according to the tilt of the pelvis. Surg Radiol Anat 26(6):462–465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-004-0254-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical CenterGuangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric SurgeryUniversity Hospital EstaingClermont FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations