Intracapsular cuneiform osteotomy compared with in-situ pinning for the management of slipped capital femoral epiphysis

Comparing pinning in situ and capital realignment procedures for severe, stable slipped capital femoral epiphysis: a systematic review

In severe, stable slipped capital femoral epiphysis, it is unclear whether pinning in situ (PIS) or capital realignment procedures (CRPs) are superior. Our primary aim was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following each strategy. Secondary aims were to compare rates of femoral head avascular necrosis (AVN) and complications. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched according to an agreed strategy. Narrative review articles, case reports, letters to the editor and articles not written in English were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of the 132 citations identified, 127 were excluded following de-duplication and application of the exclusion criteria. Three observational studies comparing PIS with CRP and two case series considering CRP alone were identified. One article was considered fair quality, and four articles were considered poor. In total, 198 hips from five studies were included (66 PIS, 132 CRP). PIS was associated with moderate-good functional outcomes, and CRP with good-high outcomes. Two comparative studies reported significantly better PROMs following CRP. AVN was reported in 1.5% following PIS and 10.6% following CRP. Regarding other complications, chondrolysis occurred in 3.0% following PIS and 2.4% following CRP. Femoroacetabular impingement rates were markedly higher following PIS (60.6% versus 2.3%). Reoperation rates were also greater following PIS (34.5% versus 13.3%). PIS tends to be associated with favourable AVN rates, but CRP with favourable PROMs and complication rates. However, comparisons were drawn from heterogeneous studies lacking long-term follow-up. Further high-quality research is required.

Prevalence of Avascular Necrosis Following Surgical Treatments in Unstable Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis (SCFE): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The choice of treatment for unstable and severely displaced slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the prevalence of femoral head avascular necrosis (AVN) following various treatments for unstable SCFE. Various databases were searched to identify articles published until 4 February 2022. A random-effects model was used to examine prevalence as well as risk ratios with confidence intervals (CIs) of 95%. Thirty-three articles were analyzed in this study. The pooled prevalences of AVN in pinning in situ, pinning following intentional closed reduction, pinning following unintentional closed reduction, and open reduction via the Parsch method, subcapital osteotomy and the modified Dunn procedure were 18.5%, 23.0%, 27.6%, 9.9%, 18.6% and 19.9%, respectively. The risk of developing AVN in pinning following intentional closed reduction was found to be 1.62 times higher than pinning in situ; however, this result was not significant. The prevalence of AVN in open reduction was lowest when performed via the Parsch method; however, this finding should be interpreted with caution, since the majority of slips so-treated are of mild and moderate types as compared with the subcapital osteotomy and modified Dunn procedures, which are predominantly used to treat severely displaced slips. As the risk ratio between intentional closed reduction and the modified Dunn method showed no significant difference, we believe that the modified Dunn method has the advantage of meticulously preserving periosteal blood flow to the epiphysis, thus minimizing AVN risk. In comparison with intentional closed reduction, the modified Dunn method is used predominantly in cases of severe slips.