Abstract
Abstract
Objective
To assess the prevalence of acetabular retroversion in patients presenting with Slipped Upper Femoral Epiphysis using both validated radiological signs and CT-angle measurements.
Methods
A retrospective review of all cases involving surgical management for acute SUFE presenting to the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne were assessed from 2012–2018. Pre-operative plain radiographs were assessed for slip angle, validated radiological signs of retroversion (post wall/crossover/ischial spine sign) and standardised post-operative CT Scans were used to assess cranial and mid-acetabular version.
Results
116 SUFEs presented in 107 patients who underwent surgical intervention; 47 females and 60 boys, with an average age of 12.7 years (range 7.5–16.6 years). Complete radiological data was available for 91 patients (99 hips) with adequate axial CT imaging of both hips. 82% patients underwent pinning in situ (PIS) with subcapital realignment surgery (SRS) performed in 18% (slip angles >75°). Contralateral prophylactic hip PIS was performed in 72 patients (87%). On the slip side, 68% of patients had 1 or more radiological signs of retroversion in the slipped hip, with 60% on the contralateral side. The mean cranial and mid-acetabular version measurements were −8°(range −30 – 8°) and 10.5°(range −10 – 25°), respectively.
Conclusions
Acetabular retroversion is rare in the normal population with studies reports ranging from 0–7%. This study showed an increased prevalence of 68% in SUFE patients, which is likely to be a primary anatomical abnormality, subsequently increasing the shear forces across the proximal femoral growth plate due to superior over-coverage. The resulting CAM lesion from SUFE in combination with the pincer lesion due to retroversion can lead to premature hip impingement and degeneration. Further larger studies are required to assess if acetabular retroversion is a true risk factor, and its role in helping guide management including prophylactic pinning.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
