We report our early experience with distracting external fixation used to offload the hip after avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head secondary to severe slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE).

A case series of five patients treated in a tertiary centre is reported. Electronic case records and radiographs were reviewed. Data recorded included demographics, initial presentation, timing of head collapse, timing and duration of distraction and outcome including referral to adult arthoplasty services.

Mean age at presentation was 12 years (range 12–15). 4 were females. Initial treatment in 4 cases was a delayed cuneiform osteotomy and pinning, one patient underwent serendipitous reduction and percutaneous pinning. Mean duration to initial surgery was 10 days (range 5–16). All patients had femoral head collapse at a mean of 148 days from time of presentation. 2 patients required backing out of screws due to intra-articular protrusion. All patients underwent distraction at a mean 193 days from presentation. Average distraction achieved was 10 mm and duration of application was 125 days (range 91–139)

All patients experienced improvement or resolution of pain but persistence of poor function, characterised by fixed adduction and limb length discrepancy. 3 patients were referred to adult arthroplasty services.

This may be an effective treatment option for pain associated with AVN post SUFE. However, in our experience normal anatomy and function of the hip is not restored if performed after collapse of the femoral head. Consideration should be given to application of the distractor either at the time of initial fixation or prior to femoral head collapse. Authors believe that timing of the application of the distractor is critical for a successful outcome and recommend a prospective study with large numbers.

This study sought to determine if treatment of resistant clubfeet by the Ilizarov method influenced the pattern of recurrence. Forty-seven children were identified as having undergone treatment by the Ilizarov method. Inclusion criteria for treatment with the Ilizarov method were clubfeet belonging to diagnostic categories that had recognised tendencies for resistance to standard methods of clubfoot management or a previous history of soft tissue releases performed adequately but accompanied by rapid relapse.

There were 60 feet with a mean follow-up of 133 months (46-224). Diagnoses included 34 idiopathic types, 7 arthrogryposis, 1 cerebral palsy, and 5 other. Summary statistics and survival analysis was used; failure was deemed as a recurrence of fixed deformity necessitating further correction. This definition parallels clinical practice where attainment of ‘normal’ feet in this group remains elusive, and mild to moderate relapses that remain passively correctable are kept under observation.

Soft tissue releases were common primary or secondary procedures. The mean time to revision surgery, if a soft tissue release was undertaken as a primary procedure, was 36 months (SD 22), and 39 (SD 23) months if undertaken for the second time. This compares with 52 months (SD 32) if Ilizarov surgery was used. Using survival analysis, there is a 50% chance of a relapse sufficiently marked to need corrective surgery after 44 months following the first soft tissue release, 47 months if after the second soft tissue procedure and 120 months after the Ilizarov technique.

We conclude that resistant club feet, defined as those belonging to diagnostic categories with known poor prognoses or those that succumb to an early relapse despite adequate soft tissue surgery, may have longer relapse-free intervals if treated by the Ilizarov method.