Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 405–409 | Cite as

Duration of immobilization after developmental dysplasia of the hip and open reduction surgery

  • Khaled Emara
  • Mohamed Ahmed AL KershEmail author
  • Fahad Abdulazeez Hayyawi
Original Paper

Abstract

Background

There is no consensus about the duration of post-operative immobilization in the treatment of DDH (developmental dysplasia of hip). Our aim in this study is to compare between two post-operative immobilization protocols for patients undergoing open reduction.

Materials and methods

Thirty-eight hips in 32 patients assigned to group A were immobilized in hip spica for four weeks followed by abduction brace application which was gradually weaned through the periods of several months and 29 hips in 24 patients assigned to group B immobilized in hip spica for 12 weeks without further bracing. Both groups were surgically reduced using anterior approach between the ages of 12–24 months.

Results

There were non-significant statistical difference between both groups as regards clinical and radiological outcome but there is significant statistical difference as regards AVN (avascular necrosis) on follow-up between both groups. The rate of AVN cannot be related to the method of immobilization, as there are many factors can lead to AVN of the hip as immobilization in an extreme position and tight reduction.

Conclusion

Group A post-operative immobilization protocol is safer and associated with less complications and more comfortable to the patient and parents than that used in group B. Early removal of hip spica cast and application of hip abduction brace does not increase the rate of re-dislocation.

Level of Evidence

Level III Retrospective comparative study

Keywords

Open reduction Developmental dysplasia of hip Hip Spica 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Ethical committee

This study was accepted from ethical committee inAin Shams University.

References

  1. 1.
    Sewell MD, Eastwood DM (2011) Screening and treatment in developmental dysplasia of the hip—where do we go from here? Int Orthop.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1257-z
  2. 2.
    Jing YJ, Lian YL, Li JZ, Qun Z, Xi JL (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 36:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murphy RF, Kim YJ (2016) Surgical management of pediatric developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24(9):615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zionts LE, MacEwan GD (1986) Treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip in children between the ages of one and three years. J Bone Joint Surg 68-A:829–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wenger DR, Bomar JD (2003) Human hip dysplasia: evolution of current treatment concepts. J Orthop Sci 8(2):264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kotlarsky P, Haber R, Bialik V, Eidelman M (2015) Developmental dysplasia of the hip: what has changed in the last 20 years? World J Orthop 6(11):886–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gregosiewicz A, Wośko I (1988) Risk factors of avascular necrosis in the treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop 8(1):17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Albrektson J, Kay RM, Tolo VT, David L, Skaggs DL (2007) Abduction pillow immobilization following hip surgery: a welcome alternative for selected patients. J Child Orthop 1(5):299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen SH, Chen WS, Chuang JH (1992) Superior mesenteric artery syndrome as a complication in hip spica application for immobilization: report of a case. J Formos Med Assoc 91(7):731–733Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiss AP, Schenck RC Jr, Sponseller PD, Thompson JD (1992) Peroneal nerve palsy after early cast application for femoral fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop 12(1):25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stasikelis P, Leed D, Sullivan C (1999) Complications of osteotomies in severe cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop 19:207–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamada K, Mihara H, Fujii H, Hachiya M (2014) A long-term follow-up study of open reduction using Ludloff’s approach for congenital or developmental dislocation of the hip. Bone Joint Res 3(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doudoulakis JK, Cavadias A (1993) Open reduction of CDH before one year of age :69 hips followed for 13 (1 0-1 9) years. Acta Orthop Scand 64(2):188–1 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramani et al (2014) Outcome of surgical management for DDH in children between 18 and 24 months. Indian J Orthop 48:458–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Issen A, Oner A, Kockara N, Camurucu Y (2016) Comparison of open reduction alone and open reduction plus Dega osteotomy in developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop B 25(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McKay DW (1974) A comparison of the innominate and the pericapsular osteotomy in the treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 98:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Severin E (1941) Contribution to the knowledge of congenital dislocation of the hip joint: late results of closed reduction and arthrographic studies of recent cases. Acta Chir Scand 84(suppl 63):1–142Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalamchi A, MacEwen GD (1980) Avascular necrosis following treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62(6):876–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Akagi S, Tanabe T, Ogawa R (1998) Acetabular development after open reduction for developmental dislocation of the hip. 15-year follow-up of 22 hips without additional surgery. Acta Orthop Scand 69(1):17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bulut M, Gürger M, Belhan O, Batur OC, Celik S, Karakurt L (2013) Management of developmental dysplasia of the hip in less than 24 months old children. Indian J Orthop 47(6):578–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clarke NM, Jowett AJ, Parker L (2005) The surgical treatment of established congenital dislocation of the hip: results of surgery after planned delayed intervention following the appearance of the capital femoral ossific nucleus. J Pediatr Orthop 25(4):434–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matsushita T, Miyake Y, Akazawa H, Eguchi S, Takahashi Y (1999) Open reduction for congenital dislocation of the hip: comparison of the long-term results of the wide exposure method and Ludloff's method. J Orthop Sci 4(5):333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szepesi K, Szücs G, Szeverényi C, Csernátony Z (2013) Long-term follow-up of DDH patients who underwent open reduction without a postoperative cast. J Pediatr Orthop B 22(2):85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khaled Emara
    • 1
  • Mohamed Ahmed AL Kersh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fahad Abdulazeez Hayyawi
    • 1
  1. 1.Ain Shams UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations