Normative Values for Capital Femoral Epiphyseal Extension of the Developing Hip Based on Age, Sex, and Oxford Bone Age.
Journal
Journal of pediatric orthopedics
ISSN: 1539-2570
Titre abrégé: J Pediatr Orthop
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109053
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
11
12
2019
medline:
15
9
2020
entrez:
11
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent evidence suggests that increasing capital femoral epiphyseal extension may be an adaptive response that underlies the development of most cam morphology, whereas slipped capital femoral epiphysis is associated with its deficiency. However, there is an absence of rigorous data on the normal development of epiphyseal extension in the hip joint in modern adolescents. The aim of this study was to establish normative values for anterior and superior epiphyseal extension in a normal adolescent control population. A total of 210 pediatric subjects (420 hips) between the ages of 8 and 17 years old at the time of presentation who received pelvic radiographs were retrospectively reviewed. Basic demographic data were collected. All subjects with underlying hip pathology were excluded. Epiphyseal extension ratio (EER) was measured, defined as the ratio of extension of the capital femoral epiphysis down the femoral neck relative to the diameter of the femoral head. Superior EER was measured on the anterioposterior view and anterior EER on the frog-leg lateral view bilaterally. Skeletal maturity was graded based on Oxford bone age (OBA) at the proximal femur. The superior EER increased from 0.63±0.05 at age 8 to 0.80±0.05 at age 17. The anterior EER similarly increased from 0.56±0.06 at age 8 to 0.74±0.05 at age 17. The superior and anterior EERs increased with age in a linear fashion for males (r=0.80 and 0.75, respectively) and females (r=0.67 and 0.65) through physeal closure. When subjects were standardized by the OBA stage of the femoral head, females and males showed no statistical difference at OBA stages 6, 7 or 8. Superior and anterior EER increased throughout adolescent development until physeal closure. When controlling for skeletal maturity, there were no significant differences between sexes. This normative data may help guide future management and research of slipped capital femoral epiphysis and cam morphology. Level II, Diagnostic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recent evidence suggests that increasing capital femoral epiphyseal extension may be an adaptive response that underlies the development of most cam morphology, whereas slipped capital femoral epiphysis is associated with its deficiency. However, there is an absence of rigorous data on the normal development of epiphyseal extension in the hip joint in modern adolescents. The aim of this study was to establish normative values for anterior and superior epiphyseal extension in a normal adolescent control population.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 210 pediatric subjects (420 hips) between the ages of 8 and 17 years old at the time of presentation who received pelvic radiographs were retrospectively reviewed. Basic demographic data were collected. All subjects with underlying hip pathology were excluded. Epiphyseal extension ratio (EER) was measured, defined as the ratio of extension of the capital femoral epiphysis down the femoral neck relative to the diameter of the femoral head. Superior EER was measured on the anterioposterior view and anterior EER on the frog-leg lateral view bilaterally. Skeletal maturity was graded based on Oxford bone age (OBA) at the proximal femur.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The superior EER increased from 0.63±0.05 at age 8 to 0.80±0.05 at age 17. The anterior EER similarly increased from 0.56±0.06 at age 8 to 0.74±0.05 at age 17. The superior and anterior EERs increased with age in a linear fashion for males (r=0.80 and 0.75, respectively) and females (r=0.67 and 0.65) through physeal closure. When subjects were standardized by the OBA stage of the femoral head, females and males showed no statistical difference at OBA stages 6, 7 or 8.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Superior and anterior EER increased throughout adolescent development until physeal closure. When controlling for skeletal maturity, there were no significant differences between sexes. This normative data may help guide future management and research of slipped capital femoral epiphysis and cam morphology.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level II, Diagnostic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31821249
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001476
pii: 01241398-202005000-00009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e335-e340Références
Siebenrock KA, Wahab KH, Werlen S, et al. Abnormal extension of the femoral head epiphysis as a cause of cam impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:54–60.
Maranho DA, Ferrer MG, Kim YJ, et al. Predicting risk of contralateral slip in unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis: posterior epiphyseal tilt increases and superior epiphyseal extension reduces risk. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:209–217.
Tayton K. Does the upper femoral epiphysis slip or rotate? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1402–1406.
Tayton K. The epiphyseal tubercle in adolescent hips. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:416–419.
Liu RW, Armstrong DG, Levine AD, et al. An anatomic study of the epiphyseal tubercle and its importance in the pathogenesis of slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e341–e348.
Carter CW, Bixby S, Yen YM, et al. The relationship between cam lesion and physis in skeletally immature patients. J Pediatr Orthop. 2014;34:579–584.
Jaramillo D, Laor T, Zaleske DJ. Indirect trauma to the growth plate: results of MR imaging after epiphyseal and metaphyseal injury in rabbits. Radiology. 1993;187:171–178.
Roels P, Agricola R, Oei EH, et al. Mechanical factors explain development of cam-type deformity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014;22:2074–2082.
Jonasson PS, Ekstrom L, Hansson HA, et al. Cyclical loading causes injury in and around the porcine proximal femoral physeal plate: proposed cause of the development of cam deformity in young athletes. J Exp Orthop. 2015;2:6.
Morris WZ, Weinberg DS, Gebhart JJ, et al. Capital femoral growth plate extension predicts cam morphology in a longitudinal radiographic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:805–812.
Morris WZ, Li RT, Liu RW, et al. Origin of cam morphology in femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46:478–486.
Acheson RM. A method of assessing skeletal maturity from radiographs; a report from the Oxford child health survey. J Anat. 1954;88:498–508.
Agricola R, Heijboer MP, Ginai AZ, et al. A cam deformity is gradually acquired during skeletal maturation in adolescent and young male soccer players: a prospective study with minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:798–806.
Siebenrock KA, Behning A, Mamisch TC, et al. Growth plate alteration precedes cam-type deformity in elite basketball players. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1084–1091.
Morris WZ, Napora JK, Conry KT, et al. Capital femoral epiphyseal extension may confer physeal stability in slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39:119–124.
Carsen S, Moroz PJ, Rakhra K, et al. The Otto Aufranc Award. On the etiology of the cam deformity: a cross-sectional pediatric MRI study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:430–436.
Bixby SD, Kienle KP, Nasreddine A, et al. Reference values for proximal femoral anatomy in adolescents based on sex, physis, and imaging plane. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2074–2082.
Jamali AA, Mak W, Wang P, et al. What is normal femoral head/neck anatomy? An analysis of radial CT reconstructions in adolescents. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:3581–3587.
Novais EN, Kienle KP, Miller PE, et al. Age- and gender-specific variations of the epiphyseal tilt and epiphyseal angle in adolescents without hip pathology. J Child Orthop. 2018;12:152–159.
Kienle KP, Keck J, Werlen S, et al. Femoral morphology and epiphyseal growth plate changes of the hip during maturation: MR assessments in a 1-year follow-up on a cross-sectional asymptomatic cohort in the age range of 9-17 years. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41:1381–1390.
Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic. 1981;86:127–137.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428.
Gelberman RH, Cohen MS, Shaw BA, et al. The association of femoral retroversion with slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1000–1007.
Gebhart JJ, Bohl MS, Weinberg DS, et al. Pelvic incidence and acetabular version in slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35:565–570.
Fishkin Z, Armstrong DG, Shah H, et al. Proximal femoral physis shear in slipped capital femoral epiphysis—a finite element study. J Pediatr Orthop. 2006;26:291–294.
Litchman HM, Duffy J. Slipped capital femoral epiphysis: factors affecting shear forces on the epiphyseal plate. J Pediatr Orthop. 1984;4:745–748.
Bhatia NN, Pirpiris M, Otsuka NY. Body mass index in patients with slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2006;26:197–199.
Murray AW, Wilson NI. Changing incidence of slipped capital femoral epiphysis: a relationship with obesity? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:92–94.
Liu RW, Toogood P, Hart DE, et al. The effect of varus and valgus osteotomies on femoral version. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009;29:666–675.
Novais EN, Shefelbine SJ, Kienle KP, et al. Body mass index affects proximal femoral but not acetabular morphology in adolescents without hip pathology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100:66–74.