This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the activities for this article: CME 4: October, November, December 2004 Pediatrics Test 6: Topics in Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery [Supplementary Material] Letters to the Editor: Submit a response Letters to the Editor: View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Rights and Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kocher, M. S. Articles by Kasser, J. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kocher, M. S. Articles by Kasser, J. R. Related Collections Pediatrics Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Prophylactic Pinning of the Contralateral Hip After Unilateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail address for M.S. Kocher: mininder.kocher{at}tch.harvard.edu
² Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Methods: Outcome probabilities were determined from a systematic review of the literature. Utility values were obtained from a questionnaire on patient preferences completed with use of a visual analog scale by twenty-five adolescent male patients without slipped capital femoral epiphysis. A decision tree was constructed, fold-back analysis was performed to determine the optimal treatment, and one and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect on decision-making of varying outcome probabilities and utilities.

Results: Observation was the optimal management strategy for the contralateral hip given the outcome probabilities and utilities that we studied (the expected value was 9.5 for observation and 9.2 for prophylactic in situ pinning, with a marginal value of 0.3). Increased rates of a late second slip favored prophylactic in situ pinning (the threshold probability was 27%). Risk-taking patients with a high utility for uncomplicated prophylactic in situ pinning favored prophylaxis (the threshold utility was 9.8).

Conclusions: The iatrogenic risks of treating a healthy patient or an uninvolved body part rarely outweigh the potential benefits unless the probability of the adverse event is likely and the consequences of the adverse event are very severe. In this decision analysis, the optimal decision was observation. In cases where the probability of contralateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis exceeds 27% or in cases where reliable follow-up is not feasible, pinning of the contralateral hip is favored. For a given individual patient, the optimal strategy depends not only on probabilities of the various outcomes but also on personal preference. Thus, we advocate a model of doctor-patient shared decision-making in which both the outcome probabilities and the patient preferences are considered in order to optimize the decision-making process.

Level of Evidence: Economic and decision analysis, Level III-1 (limited alternatives and costs; poor estimates). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Facebook    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. Yildirim, S. Bautista, and R. S. Davidson Chondrolysis, Osteonecrosis, and Slip Severity in Patients with Subsequent Contralateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2008; 90(3): 485 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. V. Raszka Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis at Young Age Predicts Bilaterality AAP Grand Rounds, September 1, 2007; 18(3): 34 - 34. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M. Schwend Height is the Best Predictor of Atypical Suspected Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis AAP Grand Rounds, January 1, 2007; 17(1): 8 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. T. Loder, T. Starnes, and G. Dikos Atypical and Typical (Idiopathic) Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis. Reconfirmation of the Age-Weight Test and Description of the Height and Age-Height Tests J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2006; 88(7): 1574 - 1581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Kocher and P. O. Newton What's New in Pediatric Orthopaedics J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 2005; 87(5): 1171 - 1179. [Full Text] [PDF]

Letters to the Editor:

Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press (TM) assists in the publication of JBJS Online.
Copyright © 2004 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. Online ISSN: 1535-1386.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery®, JBJS®, JB&JS®, and eJBJS® are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.