Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 1 of 1
Results per page:
Applied filters
The Bone & Joint Journal

Children's Orthopaedics
Dates
Year From

Year To
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1145 - 1150
1 Aug 2016
Wang C Wang T Wu K Huang S Kuo KN

Aims. This study compared the long-term results following Salter osteotomy and Pemberton acetabuloplasty in children with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). We assessed if there was a greater increase in pelvic height following the Salter osteotomy, and if this had a continued effect on pelvic tilt, lumbar curvature or functional outcomes. Patients and Methods. We reviewed 42 children at more than ten years post-operatively following a unilateral Salter osteotomy or Pemberton acetabuloplasty. We measured the increase in pelvic height and the iliac crest tilt and sacral tilt at the most recent review and at an earlier review point in the first decade of follow-up. We measured the lumbar Cobb angle and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Harris hip scores were collected at the most recent review. Results. During the first decade of follow-up, there was a greater increase in pelvic height in the children who had a Salter osteotomy (Salter, 10.1%; Pemberton, 4.3%, p < 0.001). The difference in the increase in pelvic height was insignificant at the most recent review (Salter, 4.4%; Pemberton, 3.1%, p = 0.249). There was no significant difference between the two groups for the lumbar Cobb angle, (Salter, 3.1°; Pemberton, 3.3°, p = 0.906). A coronal lumbar curve was seen in 41 children (97%), 30 of these had a compensatory curve. Sacral tilt was the radiographic parameter for pelvic imbalance that correlated most with the lumbar Cobb angle (Pearson correlation co-efficient 0.59). The Harris hip score and SF-36 were good and showed no differences between the two groups. Conclusion. In the long-term, we found no difference in the functional results or pelvic imbalance between Salter osteotomy and Pemberton acetabuloplasty in the management of children with DDH. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1145–50