Good long-term outcome of the untreated contralateral hip in unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis : Forty hips with a mean follow-up of 41 years

Fix it or risk it? Revisiting contralateral hip prophylactic fixation in unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis: an updated review of the past decade's literature

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is a common hip pathology occurring in pediatrics and adolescents, and its management is well documented in the literature regardless of its severity. In patients presenting with unilateral SCFE, the incidence of subsequent contralateral slip (SCS) is variable among studies, and the issue of contralateral hip prophylactic fixation (CHPF) becomes a concern. The fundamental rationale behind performing CHPF is to avoid the subsequent contralateral slip, which consequently lowers the risk of femoral head avascular necrosis and chondrolysis. However, prophylactic fixation carries the risk of altering proximal femoral growth, peri-implant fractures, and requiring secondary surgery for hardware removal. The current review was formulated based on the literature published in the last decade and aimed to evaluate the incidence of SCS and indications for CHPF. Apart from institutions' protocol or individual surgeons' preferences, various variables were suggested to justify CHPF, including patient-related variables such as the presence of endocrinopathy, those younger than 13 years old (10-13), and patients with mOBAS ≤ 20. Radiological parameters, posterior slip angle ≥ 14.5°, positive crossover sign, posterior epiphyseal tilt of ≥ 10°, alpha angle of ≥ 49°, and a Probability analysis of sequential SCFE (PASS score) of ≥ 3. However, there is still a controversy in the literature regarding CHPF performance and which parameter is highly dependable for predicting the SCS. The controversy extends to the effect and efficacy of various fixation hardware and whether keeping patients under observation is less effective than CHPF. Furthermore, well-designed randomized controlled trials are lacking, and their performance is warranted to establish clear indications for performing CHPF and to clarify its safety, possible consequences, and cost-effectiveness.

Total hip arthroplasty in patients with slipped capital femoral epiphysis: a systematic analysis of 915 cases

There is limited evidence on the outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis (SCFE) patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current literature in terms of survival rate, functional outcomes, complications and types of implants of THA in SCFE patients. Following the established methodology of PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane library, ScienceDirect and Ovid MEDLINE were systematically searched from inception to September 2018. The search criteria used were: (“total hip arthroplasty’’ OR ‘’total hip replacement’’ OR “hip arthroplasty’’ OR ‘’hip replacement’’) AND (‘’slipped capital femoral epiphysis’’ OR ‘’slipped upper femoral epiphysis’’ OR ‘’femoral epiphysis’’). Ten studies were finally included in the analysis and were qualitatively appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Variables were reported differently between studies. The sample size varied from 12 to 374 THAs. A total of 877 patients undergone 915 THAs. The mean reported follow-up ranged from 4.4 to 15.2 years and the mean patients’ age at the time of THA from 26 to 50 years. Four studies specified the type of implants used, with 62% being uncemented, 24% hybrid (uncemented cup/cemented stem) and 14% cemented. All but three studies reported the mean survival of implants that ranged from 64.9% to 94.8%. A limited number of complications were mentioned. There was a tendency for more favorable functional outcomes in modern studies. Modern THA-studies in SCFE patients showed improvement of survivorship, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Future higher-quality studies are necessary to estimate long-term postoperative outcomes better.

Epiphyseal Angulation and Related Spatial Orientation in Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis: Theoretical Model and Biomechanical Explanation of Varus and Valgus Slip

The management of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is controversial. Surgical decision-making is based regularly on the chronicity, stability, and severity of the slip. The purpose of this study was to determine the true angulation and spatial orientation of the epiphysis in hips with SCFE and contralateral hips.

METHODS

Eighteen hips in 18 patients with SCFE were included in the analysis. Trigonometric calculations, based on angle measurements using 2 conventional radiographs in planes that are perpendicular to each other, were used to determine the angulation of the epiphysis and its orientation in space.

RESULTS

The mean absolute epiphyseal obliquity of the SCFE hips was 56.2° and the spatial orientation was 36.5°. The mean obliquity of the contralateral side was 34.0°, with a related spatial orientation of 16.8°. The maximum error can reach up to 9.9° (or 41%) when comparing the calculated angles with the angle measurements on radiographs.

CONCLUSIONS

On standard radiographs, the epiphyseal angulation in SCFE is consistently underestimated. As a consequence, the assigned classification of some patients may be 1 severity group too low, which impacts the value of traditional severity classification for surgical decision-making. The analysis of the spatial orientation of the slip with the concomitant direction of the resultant shear can partially explain varus and valgus slip in SCFE.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What Is the Prevalence of Cam Deformity After Prophylactic Pinning of the Contralateral Asymptomatic Hip in Unilateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis? A 10-year Minimum Followup Study

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic pinning of the asymptomatic and normal-appearing contralateral hip in patients with unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) remains controversial. Understanding the minimal 10-year clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes of the contralateral asymptomatic hip in unilateral SCFE may be helpful in the decision regarding whether the benefits associated with potentially preventing a SCFE are outweighed by the risk of additional surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Among patients with SCFE treated with prophylactic pinning of the asymptomatic and contralateral hip, we sought (1) to determine the complications and reoperations; (2) to evaluate the development of cam deformities and the frequency and severity of osteoarthritis progression; and (3) to characterize hip pain and function as measured by the Harris hip score (HHS) and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) at minimal 10-year followup.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2005 all patients with SCFE seen at our institution were treated with the modified Dunn procedure and all were offered prophylactic pinning of the contralateral asymptomatic hip. Of the 41 patients who underwent the unilateral modified Dunn procedure and who had an asymptomatic contralateral hip, 37 patients (90%) underwent pinning of that contralateral hip. Of those, 33 patients (80%) were available for clinical and radiographic evaluation for this retrospective study at a minimum of 10 years (mean followup 12 ± 2 years) after surgery. Three patients of the 37 patients only had 10-year clinical followup, including questionnaires sent by mail and telephone, because they refused further radiographic followup and one patient was lost to followup. The group included 19 males and 17 females whose age at surgery was a mean of 13 ± 2 years. Medical charts were reviewed and patients were asked about complications and additional surgical procedures. Most recent postoperative radiographs were evaluated for measurement of the alpha angle, head-neck offset, epiphysis orientation, and osteoarthritis grading according to Tönnis classification and minimum joint space width. The presence of a cam deformity was defined by an alpha angle measurement > 60° on the AP radiograph and/or > 55° on the lateral radiograph. Hip function and pain were assessed by the HHS and HOOS outcome measures.

RESULTS

No complications with prophylactic in situ pinning were recorded. Four of 36 (11%) patients underwent subsequent surgical treatment for cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), and hardware removal was performed in four hips (11%). The mean alpha angle was 53° ± 8° on the AP radiograph and 49° ± 8° on the lateral view at followup. In total, 10 of 33 hips (30%) had a cam morphology at the femoral head-neck junction and four (12%) were symptomatic and underwent FAI surgery. Six of 33 patients (18%) developed an asymptomatic cam morphology at the femoral head-neck junction; in three of 33 hips (9%), the cam deformity instead of lesion were visible only on the lateral projection, and 9% were visible on both the AP and lateral projections. The preoperative offset of the femoral head-neck junction was 10 ± 3 mm on the AP view and 11 ± 4 mm on the lateral view. At followup, the AP offset was 7 ± 3 mm and the lateral offset was 6 ± 3 mm, and on the lateral view, the offset was < 10 mm in eight hips (22%). No patient had radiographic signs of hip osteoarthritis (Tönnis Grade 0). The mean minimum joint space width was 4 ± 0.4 mm. The mean HHS for the 32 patients who did not undergo subsequent surgery was 97 ± 5 at latest followup. The mean postoperative HOOS was 94 ± 8 for the 32 patients at latest followup.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum followup of 10 years after prophylactic pinning of a contralateral asymptomatic hip, most patients achieve excellent hip scores; however, a substantial proportion will develop a symptomatic cam deformity despite prophylactic pinning. No patient had signs of osteoarthritis at a minimum of 10 years, but almost one-third of the patients who underwent prophylactic pinning developed a cam deformity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Asynchronous slipped capital femoral epiphysis in a patient with a seizure disorder: case report and review of the literature

Debate remains about the appropriate treatment of the asymptomatic side following treatment of a unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). A 12-year-old boy with a seizure disorder presented with an unstable SCFE on the left hip following a seizure. He underwent percutaneous pinning of the left only. At 8 months postoperatively, he returned with an unstable slip of the right hip, again following a seizure. No literature discussing the treatment of patients with risk of SCFE and seizure disorders was identified. Further study may identify an increased incidence of contralateral slip following an initial slip in this population. If a greater risk exists, contralateral prophylactic fixation at time of index surgery may be indicated.

Morphologic Features of the Contralateral Femur in Patients With Unilateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Resembles Mild Slip Deformity: A Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Hip osteoarthritis has been reported in the contralateral hip in patients who had been treated for unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) during adolescence. Although this might be related to the presence of a mild deformity, the morphologic features of the contralateral hip in unilateral SCFE remains poorly characterized.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Do measurements of (1) femoral head-neck concavity (α angle and femoral head-neck offset), (2) epiphyseal extension into the metaphysis (epiphyseal extension ratio and epiphyseal angle), and (3) posterior tilt of the epiphysis (epiphyseal tilt angle) differ between the contralateral asymptomatic hips of patients treated for unilateral SCFE and hips of an age- and sex-matched control population without a history of hip disease?

METHODS

From January 2005 to May 2015, 442 patients underwent surgical treatment for SCFE at our institution. Patients were included in this study if they had a pelvic CT scan and unilateral SCFE defined by pain or a limp in one hip without symptoms or obligatory external rotation with flexion in the contralateral hip and no evidence of SCFE findings on available radiographs. Seventy-two (16%) patients had a pelvic CT scan; however, 32 patients with bilateral involvement and one patient with CT imaging of inadequate quality for multiplanar reformatting were excluded. Thirty-nine control subjects were identified from a preexisting database of patients who underwent pelvic CT between January 2008 and January 2014 for assessment of abdominal pain in the setting of suspected appendicitis. Patients in the contralateral asymptomatic hip group then were matched to control subjects using a modified nearest-neighbor approach based on sex and age. Patients in the contralateral asymptomatic hip group were separated in males and females and control subjects were assigned to an appropriate sex category. Then subjects closest in age were matched with each patient. If more than one subject was available as a match for a given patient, the control subject with the closest BMI was selected. The contralateral asymptomatic hip and matched groups had 19 (49%) male patients and 20 (51%) female patients, with mean ages (± SD) of 16 (± 3) years and 16 (± 3) years, respectively (p = 0.16). Matched subjects had a mean BMI of 25 ± 4 kg/m and the mean BMI difference among groups was 5 ± 5 kg/m (p < 0.001). According to the Southwick radiographic criteria nine patients (23%) had a mild slip, 10 (26%) had a moderate slip, and 19 (49%) had severe SCFE. The α angle and femoral head-neck offset, epiphyseal extension ratio and epiphyseal angle, and epiphyseal tilt were assessed in the anterior, anterosuperior, and superior femoral planes on radially reformatted CT by one observer not involved in clinical care of the patients. Inter- and intrarater reliability were determined on 10 randomly selected hips assessed by the same observer and another observer and it was found to be excellent for all femoral measurements (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.85). Paired t-tests were used to compare the contralateral asymptomatic hip of patients with SCFE and control hips.

RESULTS

The head-neck junction showed decreased concavity in the contralateral femur of patients with unilateral SCFE compared with control subjects as assessed by slightly higher mean α angle in the anterosuperior plane (51° ± 6° versus 48° ± 7°; mean difference, 2°, 95% CI, 0°-5°; p = 0.04) and slightly higher median α angle in the superior plane (45° [range 37°-72°] versus 42° [range, 36°-50°], median shift, 4° [range, 2°-5°], p < 0.001), and slightly lower head-neck offset (anterosuperior: 5 mm ± 2 mm versus 6 mm ± 2 mm, mean difference, -1mm [range, -1 mm to 0 mm], p = 0.009; superior: median, 6 mm [range, 1 mm-8 mm] versus 7 mm [range, 5 mm-9 mm]; median shift, -1 mm [range, -1 mm to 0 mm], p < 0.001). There was less epiphyseal extension in the anterosuperior plane as evidenced by lower epiphyseal extension ratio (72% ± 6% versus 75% ± 6%; p = 0.005) and higher epiphyseal angle (64° ± 7° versus 60° ± 7°; p = 0.003). The epiphysis was slightly more posteriorly tilted (anterior plane tilt: 8° ± 6° versus 5° ± 4°; p = 0.03) and more vertically oriented (superior plane tilt 11° ± 5° versus 14° ± 4°; p = 0.006) in the contralateral asymptomatic hip of patients with SCFE.

CONCLUSIONS

The contralateral femur in patients treated for unilateral SCFE shows decreased concavity of the head-neck junction assessed by a higher α angle and reduced head-neck offset compared with age- and sex-matched control subjects. Because we noted lower epiphyseal extension but a more posteriorly tilted epiphysis, the reduced concavity resembles a mild slip deformity rather than an idiopathic cam morphologic feature.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although we noted a difference in the morphologic features of the head-neck junction between the two groups, the clinical significance is unclear because most differences were rather small. However, our findings suggest that the uninvolved hip in patients with unilateral SCFE may have a subtle asymptomatic cam morphologic feature that may be identified only with advanced imaging (CT or MRI). Future studies should investigate whether these morphologic changes influence development of contralateral SCFE or symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement in the contralateral hip of patients with unilateral SCFE and establish thresholds for indication of prophylactic fixation to avoid further slip and worsening of the morphologic features of the cam-femoroacetabular impingement.