RESUMO
PURPOSE: Stable slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is often treated with in situ pinning, with the current gold standard being stabilization with a screw perpendicular to the physis. However, this can lead to impingement and a potentially unstable construct. In this study we model the biomechanical effect of two screw positions used for SCFE fixation. We hypothesize that single screw fixation into the centre of the femoral head from the anterior intertrochanteric line (the Universal Entry Point or UEP) provides a more stable construct than single screw fixation perpendicular to the physis with an anterior starting point. METHODS: Sawbone models of moderate SCFE were used to mechanically test the two screw constructs and an unfixed control group. Models were loaded to failure with a shear load applied through the physis in an Instron mechanical tester. The primary outcomes were maximum load, stiffness and energy to failure. RESULTS: Screw fixation into the centre of the femoral head from the UEP resulted in a greater load to failure (+19%), stiffness (+13%) and energy to failure (+45%) than screw fixation perpendicular to the physis. CONCLUSIONS: In this sawbone construct, screw fixation into the centre of the femoral head from the UEP provides greater biomechanical stability than screw fixation perpendicular to the physis. This approach may also benefit by avoiding an intracapsular entry point in soft metaphyseal bone and subsequent risk of impingement and loss of position.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The posterior sloping angle (PSA) has been shown to be an objective and reproducible predictor of the risk of patients developing contralateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE); however, prophylactic fixation remains controversial. This in vitro study investigates the biomechanical basis of using a 15-degree PSA as a threshold for prophylactic fixation. METHODS: Synthetic bone in vitro models of the proximal femur were constructed with a PSA of 10 degrees as a control (normal) group (n=6) by performing an osteotomy at the physis and gluing the head back onto the neck. SCFE groups were created with a PSA of 15, 20, 25, 30, 50, or 60 degrees, by excising a wedge from the posterior neck and gluing them back at the new angle with corresponding posterior translation proportional to the slip angle, and loaded superoinferiorly in compression, to failure. Ultimate strength, energy to failure, and stiffness were recorded. RESULTS: Increasing the PSA from 10 to 15 degrees only reduced ultimate strength by 13% (P>0.05; CI, -0.21 to -0.06), though a significantly lesser energy to failure was required (-58%, P<0.05; CI, -0.68 to -0.48). Increasing the angle to 20 degrees resulted in a further significant decrease in strength (-19%, P<0.05; CI, -0.28 to -0.10) and energy to failure (-45%, P<0.05; CI, -0.53 to -0.84). The severe SCFE (60-degree PSA) was significantly weaker and less rigid that the control, and the mild and moderate SCFE models (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These biomechanical data support the threshold of 15-degree PSA as an objective measure for prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip in SCFE. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The number needed to treat with (minimally invasive) prophylactic fixation to prevent contralateral SCFE can be minimized if the above-mentioned threshold is used.
