Suppr超能文献

改良邓恩手术治疗不稳定型股骨头骨骺滑脱时评估股骨头灌注是否是骨坏死的准确指标?

Is Assessment of Femoral Head Perfusion During Modified Dunn for Unstable Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis an Accurate Indicator of Osteonecrosis?

作者信息

Novais Eduardo N, Sink Ernest L, Kestel Lauryn A, Carry Patrick M, Abdo João C M, Heare Travis C

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Hunnewell Building, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.

Hip Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Aug;474(8):1837-44. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4819-y. Epub 2016 Apr 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The modified Dunn procedure, which is an open subcapital realignment through a surgical dislocation approach, has gained popularity for the treatment of unstable slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). Intraoperative monitoring of the femoral head perfusion has been recommended as a method of predicting osteonecrosis; however, the accuracy of this assessment has not been well documented.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked (1) whether intraoperative assessment of femoral head perfusion would help identify hips at risk of developing osteonecrosis; (2) whether one of the four methods of assessment of femoral head perfusion is more accurate (highest area under the curve) at identifying hips at risk of osteonecrosis; and (3) whether specific clinical features would be associated with osteonecrosis occurrence after a modified Dunn procedure for unstable SCFE.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2014, we performed 29 modified Dunn procedures for unstable SCFE (16 boys, 11 girls; median age, 13 years; range, 8-17 years); two were lost to followup before 1 year. During this period, six patients with unstable SCFE were treated by other procedures. All patients undergoing modified Dunn underwent assessment of epiphyseal perfusion by the presence of active bleeding and/or by intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. In the initial five patients perfusion was recorded once, either before dissection of the retinacular flap or after fixation by one of the two methods. In the remaining 22 patients (81%), perfusion was systematically assessed before dissection of the retinacular flap and after fixation by both methods. Minimum followup was 1 year (median, 2.5 years; range, 1-8 years) because osteonecrosis typically develops within the first year after surgery. Patients were assessed for osteonecrosis by the presence of femoral head collapse at radiographs obtained every 3 months during the first year after surgery. Seven (26%) of the 27 patients developed osteonecrosis. Measures of diagnostic accuracy including sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) were estimated. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses were used to test whether the test options were better than random chance (AUC > 0.50) at differentiating between patients who did versus did not develop osteonecrosis. Nonparametric methods were used to test for a difference in AUC across the four methods. A secondary analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with osteonecrosis.

RESULTS

After adjusting for body mass index, which was found to be a confounding variable, assessment of femoral head perfusion with ICP monitoring before retinaculum dissection (adjusted AUC: 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.99; p = 0.006), femoral head perfusion with ICP monitoring after definitive fixation (adjusted AUC: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.0; p < 0.001), bleeding before retinaculum dissection (adjusted AUC: 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; p = 0.006), and bleeding after definitive fixation (adjusted AUC: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99; p = 0.001) were found to be helpful at identifying osteonecrosis. We were not able to identify a specific test that had performed best because there was no difference (p = 0.8226) in AUC across the four methods. With the numbers available, we were unable to identify clinical factors predictive of osteonecrosis in our cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessments of femoral head blood perfusion by ICP monitoring or by the presence of active bleeding in combination with the patient's body mass index are effective at differentiating between patients who do versus do not develop osteonecrosis after a modified Dunn procedure for unstable SCFE. Additional research is needed to determine whether information gained from assessment of femoral head perfusion during surgery should be used to guide targeted treatment recommendations that may reduce the development of femoral head deformity secondary to osteonecrosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

摘要

背景

改良邓恩手术是一种通过手术脱位方法进行的开放性股骨头下复位术,在治疗不稳定型股骨头骨骺滑脱(SCFE)方面越来越受欢迎。术中监测股骨头灌注被推荐作为预测骨坏死的一种方法;然而,这种评估的准确性尚未得到充分记录。

问题/目的:我们探讨了(1)术中评估股骨头灌注是否有助于识别有发生骨坏死风险的髋关节;(2)在识别有骨坏死风险的髋关节方面,四种股骨头灌注评估方法中的一种是否更准确(曲线下面积最大);(3)对于不稳定型SCFE的改良邓恩手术后,特定的临床特征是否与骨坏死的发生相关。

方法

2007年至2014年期间,我们对29例不稳定型SCFE患者进行了改良邓恩手术(16例男孩,11例女孩;中位年龄13岁;范围8 - 17岁);2例在1年之前失访。在此期间,6例不稳定型SCFE患者接受了其他手术治疗。所有接受改良邓恩手术的患者均通过观察活跃出血情况和/或通过颅内压(ICP)监测来评估骨骺灌注。最初的5例患者通过两种方法之一在切开支持带瓣之前或固定之后记录一次灌注情况。其余22例患者(81%)在切开支持带瓣之前和固定之后均通过两种方法系统地评估灌注。由于骨坏死通常在术后第一年内发生,所以最短随访时间为1年(中位时间2.5年;范围1 - 8年)。在术后第一年,每3个月通过X线片观察股骨头塌陷情况来评估患者是否发生骨坏死。27例患者中有7例(26%)发生了骨坏死。估计了包括敏感性、特异性和受试者工作特征曲线(AUC)下面积在内的诊断准确性指标。使用多变量逻辑回归分析来检验在区分发生和未发生骨坏死的患者时,这些检测方法是否优于随机概率(AUC > 0.50)。使用非参数方法检验四种方法的AUC差异。进行了一项二次分析以确定与骨坏死相关的危险因素。

结果

在调整了被发现为混杂变量的体重指数后,发现切开支持带之前通过ICP监测评估股骨头灌注(调整后AUC:0.79;95%置信区间[CI],0.58 - 0.99;p = 0.006)、最终固定后通过ICP监测评估股骨头灌注(调整后AUC:0.82;95% CI,0.65 - 1.0;p < 0.001)、切开支持带之前的出血情况(调整后AUC:0.77;95% CI,0.58 -

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验