Percutaneous Versus Open Hamstring Lengthening in Spastic Diplegic Cerebral Palsy | ||
| The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
| مقاله 12، دوره 7، شماره 4، مهر 2019، صفحه 373-378 اصل مقاله (436.83 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2019.36118.1953 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Javad Khaje Mozafari؛ Karim Pisoudeh* ؛ kaveh Gharanizadeh؛ Mansour Abolghasemian | ||
| Bone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Shafa Orthopaedic Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Background: Open hamstring lengthening (oHSL) is commonly performed to decrease knee contracture and improve gait and posture for children with spastic diplegia. Furthermore, percutaneous hamstring lengthening (pHSL) is also gaining popularity as an alternative to the open approach. This study aimed to compare the results of pHSL versus oHSL and to determine the efficacy and safety of the percutaneous approach. Methods: This retrospective included 54 patients (108 knees) with spastic diplegia operated for flexed knee gait with either open or percutaneous HSL. The mean age of the participants at the time of surgery was 10.3±1.7 years (age range: 5-25 years) for the open and 8.5±1.5 years (age range: 7-23 years) for the percutaneous group. Overall, 29 and 25 children were subjected to oHSL and pHSL, respectively. Results: The mean durations of follow-up were 19.1 months (range: 12-49 months) and 18.3 months (range: 14- 45 months) for oHSL and pHSL groups, respectively. In the open group, the mean of preoperative popliteal angle decreased from 64.3±3.6 to 28.4±4.3 (P<0.001), and in the percutaneous group from 63.8±2.7 to 29.5±2.3 (P<0.001). The obtained results revealed no significant differences between the two approaches leading to a similar improvement among the investigated patients (P=0.83). Although the Gross Motor Function Class Score improved significantly within each group (P<0.001); this improvement was insignificant between the groups (P=0.88). The mean of hospital stay for the percutaneous group was 1.6 days (range:1-3 days) compared to 3.6 days (range: 2-6 days) for the open group, which indicated a significant difference (P=0.001). The mean values of total cost were $333 and $473 in the percutaneous group and open group (P=0.001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the complication rate (P=0.85). Conclusion: Percutaneous HSL is a safe, easy, rapid, and brief procedure that is as effective as the open technique for children with spastic diplegia in a short period of time. However, it is essential to examine the effects of this approach during longer follow-ups to generalize the findings of the current study. Level of evidence: III | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Cerebral palsy؛ Diplegia؛ Hamstring lengthening؛ Percutaneous؛ Popliteal angle | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1. Lin CJ, Guo LY, Su FC, Chou YL, Cherng RJ. Common abnormal kinetic patterns of the knee in gait in spastic diplegia of cerebral palsy. Gait Posture. 2000; 11(3):224-32. 2. Abel MF, Damiano DL, Pannunzio M, Bush J. Muscletendon surgery in diplegic cerebral palsy: functional and mechanical changes. J Pediatr Orthop. 1999; 19(3):366-75. 3. Chang WN, Tsirikos AI, Miller F, Lennon N, Schuyler J, Kerstetter L, et al. Distal hamstring lengthening in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy: primary versus revision procedures. Gait Posture. 2004; 19(3):298-304. 4. DeLuca PA, Ounpuu S, Davis RB, Walsh JH. Effect of hamstring and psoas lengthening on pelvic tilt in patients with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 1998; 18(6):712-8. 5. Kay RM, Rethlefsen SA, Skaggs D, Leet A. Outcome of medial versus combined medial and lateral hamstring lengthening surgery in cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002; 22(2):169-72. 6. Morrissy RT, Weinstein SL. Atlas of pediatric orthopaedic surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. P. 600-7. 7. Brunner R, Jaspers RT, Pel JJ, Huijing PA. Acute and long-term effects on muscle force after intramuscular aponeurotic lengthening. Clin Orthop. 2000; 378(1): 264-73. 8. Westwell M, Deluca P, Ounpuu S. Effect of repeat hamstring lengthenings in individuals with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2004; 46(S99):14-5. 9. Bleck EE. Orthopedic management in cerebral palsy. London, UK: MacKeith Press; 1987. P. 352-5. 10. Ahmed AA, Rafalla AA. Clinical outcome of hamstring lengthening to correct flexed knee gait in patients with spastic diplegia. Egyp Orthop J. 2016; 51(4): 352-8. 11. Thompson N, Stebbins J, Seniorou M, Wainwright AM, Newham DJ, Theologis TN. The use of minimally invasive techniques in multi-level surgery for children with cerebral palsy: preliminary results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(10):1442-8. 12. Hachache B, Eid T, Ghosn E, Sebaaly A, Kharrat K, Ghanem I. Is percutaneous proximal gracilis tenotomy as effective and safe as the open procedure? J Child Orthop. 2015; 9(6):477-81. 13. Salamon ML, Pinney SJ, Van Bergeyk A, Hazelwood S. Surgical anatomy and accuracy of percutaneous achilles tendon lengthening. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27(6):411-3. 14. El Hage S, Rachkidi R, Noun Z, Haidar R, Dagher F, Kharrat K. Is percutaneous adductor tenotomy as effective and safe as the open procedure? J Pediatr Orthop. 2010; 30(5):485-8. 15. Nazareth A, Rethlefsen S, Ted C, Mueske NM, Wren TA, Kay RM. Percutaneous hamstring lengthening surgery is as effective as open lengthening in children with cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 2016; 22(10):924. 16. Gordon AB, Baird GO, McMulkin ML, Caskey PM, Ferguson RL. Gait analysis outcomes of percutaneous medial hamstring tenotomies in children with cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008; 28(3):324-9. 17. Mansour T, Derienne J, Daher M, Sarraf D, Zoghbi Y, Ghanem I. Is percutaneous medial hamstring myofascial lengthening as anatomically effective and safe as the open procedure? J Child Orthop. 2017; 11(1):15-9. 18. Saini R, Dhillon MS, Tripathy SK, Goyal T, Sudesh P, Gill SS, et al. Regeneration of the Achilles tendon after percutaneous tenotomy in infants: a clinical and MRI study. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2010; 19(4):344-7. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 469 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 534 |
||