Journals / Eurasian Journal of Medical Investigation / 2020 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 4

Significant Clinical Improvement After Trochanteric Transfer (Mean 6-Year Follow-Up)

Pages
529–533
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There was a statisticallysignificant chance in HHS (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Premature closure of the proximal femoral physis may occur as a sequel to the treatment of Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, septic arthritis and developmental dysplasia of the hip.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Decrease in the articulotrochanteric distance may lead to shorteningof the adductor force arm.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There was a statisticallysignificant chance in HHS (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Premature closure of the proximal femoral physis may occur as a sequel to the treatment of Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, septic arthritis and developmental dysplasia of the hip. The discontinuation oflongitudinal growth in the proximal femoral physis and the continued growth of the trochanter result in a short femoralneck and a relatively enlarged great trochanter. Decrease in the articulotrochanteric distance may lead to shorteningof the adductor force arm. Therefore, positive Trandelenburg's sign can be seen in patients secondary to a decrease inabductor function. The main objective in trochanteric transfer surgery is to increase the abductor force arm to eliminatethe disruption and to improve hip functions. We have aim to evaluate clinical and radiological results of trochanterictransfer surgery.Methods: 8 patients who underwent trochanteric transfer surgery between June 2011 and June 2014 were evaluatedretrospectively. Age, gender, skeletal maturity status at the time of surgery, additional surgeries, side, postoperativefollow-up time and symptom duration has recorded. Range of motion degrees of hip, abductor muscle strength, leglength discrepancy and Harris Hip Score(HHS) has measured both preoperative and postoperative period. Radiologicalevaluations were made on posteroanterior pelvis and lateral hip radiographs.Results: The mean age of the patients was found to be 17.63 (13–32 years) at the time of surgery. Patients were followed for at least 36 months. The mean follow-up period was 74.75 months (36–92 months). There was a statisticallysignificant chance in HHS (p

🔖

Cite This Article

EREN, M. B. (2022). Significant Clinical Improvement After Trochanteric Transfer (Mean 6-Year Follow-Up). Eurasian Journal of Medical Investigation, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 4, 529–533. https://ajindex.com/articles/508703

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Kelikian A, Tachdjian M, Askew M, Jasty M (1983) Greater trochanteric advancement of the proximal femur: a clinical and biomechanical study. The Hip:77
  2. Schneidmueller D, Carstens C, Thomsen M (2006) Surgical treatment of overgrowth of the greater trochanter in children and adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics 26:486–90
  3. Stevens PM, Coleman SS (1985) Coxa breva: its pathogenesis and a rationale for its management. Journal of pediatric orthopedics 5:515–21
  4. Eilert RE, Hill K, Bach J (2005) Greater trochanteric transfer for the treatment of coxa brevis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 434:92–101
  5. Garrido IM, Moltó FJL, Lluch DB (2003) Distal transfer of the greater trochanter in acquired coxa vara. Clinical and radiographic results. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B 12:38–43
  6. Pucher A, Ruszkowski K, Bernardczyk K, Nowicki J (2000) The value of distal greater trochanteric transfer in the treatment of deformity of the proximal femur owing to avascular necrosis. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics 20:311–6
  7. Ranawat AS, Schulz B, Baumbach SF, Meftah M, Ganz R, Leunig M (2011) Radiographic predictors of hip pain in femoroacetabular impingement. HSS Journal® 7:115–9
  8. Heuck F, Bast B (1994) Radiologische Skizzen und Tabellen. Peripheres Skelett. Thieme, Stuttgart New York
  9. Hilgenreiner H (1925) Zur Fuhdiagnose und Fruhbehandlung der angeboren Huftgelenkverrenkung. Med Klin 21:1425–9
  10. Wiberg G (1939) Studies on dysplastic acetabula and congenial subluxation of the hip joint. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 83:1– 130
  11. Idelberger K, Frank A (1952) A new method for determination of the angle of the pevic acetabulum in child and in adult. Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und ihre Grenzgebiete 82:571–7
  12. Pauwels F (2012) Biomechanics of the Normal and Diseased Hip: Theoretical Foundation, Technique and Results of Treatment An Atlas. Springer Science & Business Media
  13. Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A (1993) Hip joint loading during walking and running, measured in two patients. Journal of biomechanics 26:969–90
  14. Royer TD, Wasilewski CA (2006) Hip and knee frontal plane moments in persons with unilateral, trans-tibial amputation. Gait & posture 23:303–6
  15. Lloyd-Roberts G, Wetherill M, Fraser M (1985) Trochanteric advancement for premature arrest of the femoral capital growth plate. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume 67:21–4
  16. Macnicol M, Makris D (1991) Distal transfer of the greater trochanter.