1980
DOI: 10.2106/00004623-198062030-00009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease. Long-term evaluation of non-containment treatment.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
36
0
1

Year Published

1984
1984
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
36
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…To increase the prognostic accuracy he introduced the concept of head-at-risk signs. 2 Since then many authors have used this classification, [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] but there have been some criticisms. First, the grouping is based on the epiphyseal involvement at the time of maximum resorption.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To increase the prognostic accuracy he introduced the concept of head-at-risk signs. 2 Since then many authors have used this classification, [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] but there have been some criticisms. First, the grouping is based on the epiphyseal involvement at the time of maximum resorption.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This occurs relatively late and the grouping will appear to change if the classification is applied too early. 13,15,16 Secondly, there is a poor level of interobserver agreement 17,18 and groups 2 and 3 are particularly difficult to separate. Fulford et al 5 , in their prospective study, suggested that the final functional result could be predicted more accurately by the arthrographic appearances at initial examination rather than by the Catterall classification.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was no patient submitted to arthroplasty up and load restraint, allowed irrespectively to disease's phase were included, with clinical treatment being recommended with rest in bed and traction, in severe limitations of the range of motion. Surgical treatment for restraint was indicated by the presence of signs of "head at risk" (8,9) . In group II, treatment was provided with load restraint during the active phase of the disease, necrosis and/or fragmentation, alternating periods of 6 weeks with plastered immobilization in abduction and inward rotation, followed by plaster removal for two or three weeks -intending a gain in the range of motion -but load was not allowed yet.…”
Section: Abstract: Legg-perthes Disease; Follow-up Studies; Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earlier studies are retrospective without any control group. In addition, the treatments have been combinations of several treatments such as: bed rest [6, 12, 14-16, 18, 20], traction [5,12,15], abduction splints [15,18], plaster [15], spica casting with [2,5,6,10,16,18] and without [2,5,6] weightbearing, Thomas splint [20,21], shoe elevation on the normal side [16,20], crutches [10,16,20], wheelchair [10], or no treatment [2,21]. In contrast, we evaluated one treatment method, namely, use of a Thomas splint.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earlier studies have shown an overall prevalence of OA between 5% and 100% [2,5,6,10,12,14,16,20,21], and a prevalence of THA ranging from 0% to 24% [2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 21] ( Table 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%