Análise radiográfica dos fatores prognósticos no tratamento do quadril displásico inveterado
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of surgical treatment of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH) treated in the walking age. METHODS: We evaluated 33 hips in 30 patients operated between November of 1992 and September of 1997. The mean age was 4 years and 5 months at surgical period and the mean...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2010 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.unifesp.br:11600/5478 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-78522010000400009 http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/5478 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Hip dislocation, congenital Osteotomy Surgery Radiography Follow-up studies Luxação congênita de quadril Osteotomia Cirurgia Radiografia Avaliação Seguimentos |
| Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of surgical treatment of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH) treated in the walking age. METHODS: We evaluated 33 hips in 30 patients operated between November of 1992 and September of 1997. The mean age was 4 years and 5 months at surgical period and the mean age at the last evaluation was 11 years and 7 months. The mean follow up time was 10 years and 2 months. We performed femoral shortening, open reduction and pelvic osteotomy (Salter or Chiari). Radiographic assessment considered: acetabular index; acetabular angle; Shenton's line; Hilgenreiner's line; the c/b, c/h, acetabulum-center and acetabulum-head ratios; the width of the triradiate cartilage; the trochanter and femoral head relationship; femoral head sphericity; Wiberg angle; avascular necrosis and leg length discrepancy. These parameters were measured and compared in pre-operative, early and late post-operative period. RESULTS: After statistical analysis we observed a significant decrease in these parameters from pre-operative period to immediate post-operative period (p=0.0001) and those have not changed between the immediate post-operative period and late post-operative period (p=0.5958). CONCLUSION: By the classification used we observed 23 (69.70%) good, 5 (15.15%) regular and 5 (15.15%) bad results. None of these radiographic parameters were relevant to predicting final results. |
|---|