Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Proximal Femoral Focal Deficiency Treatment & Management

  • Author: Mark C Lee, MD; Chief Editor: William L Jaffe, MD  more...
 
Updated: Nov 07, 2014
 

Medical Therapy

Management of proximal femoral focal deficiency (PFFD) requires a multidisciplinary team, which includes the pediatric orthopedic surgeon, prosthetists, and physical therapists. The goals of treatment are to compensate for the various functional deficits that may be present. No single treatment approach applies to all cases. Each person with PFFD must be assessed individually. Cosmesis is much less of an issue.

The most apparent functional deficit in PFFD is the shortened limb. A less obvious one is the difficulty with hip function and stability. Because of the flexed and externally rotated position of the femur, the knee remains flexed, and the leg and foot are anterior to the body axis. There is a generalized deficiency of the hip musculature, even in patients with stable hips, resulting in a significant lurch to shift the center of gravity in the single-leg stance.[9]

The knee often has varying degrees of instability as well. Foot function generally depends on the severity of any associated leg deficiency, such as fibular hemimelia.

Multiple options and variations exist in the treatment of PFFD, probably more than in any other congenital limb deficiency. Most of the treatments should be delayed until the child is older than 3 years; it is difficult to determine the best option before this age. When the time comes for treatment, however, several important decisions must be made. The first such decision is whether limb-lengthening is appropriate for the child.

Indications for limb-lengthening include a limb with a predicted discrepancy at maturity not exceeding 20 cm; a hip that is or can be made stable; and a relatively good knee, ankle, and foot. In such an individual, multiple staged lengthenings can be planned that generally do not begin before the child's third birthday and optimally are completed by high school age. The timing and staging of these procedures depends on physician choice. Griffith et al studied 11 children (12 limbs) who underwent limb-lengthenings of the same bone twice.[21]

If the predicted discrepancy is greater than 20 cm or if, for any reason, the child's condition is not suitable for lengthening, a decision must be made about the best approach to fitting a prosthetic device. The patient with PFFD always requires a prosthesis for ambulation; therefore, any procedure that is attempted must be with the intent of improving the function or fit of a prosthesis.[1]

Another consideration is the type of prosthesis a patient will wear. Most procedures result in the use of an above-the-knee prosthesis with a mechanical knee. For example, the combination of a Syme amputation, knee fusion, and possibly an epiphysiodesis at the knee results in an above-the-knee stump. Rotationplasty procedures allow the use of a below-the-knee prosthesis with a biologic knee.[7, 22, 23]

The initial treatment of the child with unilateral PFFD should parallel normal development. This same principle applies to other congenital deficiencies as well. Therefore, regardless of planned future treatments, when the child is ready to stand, the child is fitted with a prosthesis to equalize leg lengths and allow standing and walking.[7] This prosthesis, often termed a nonconventional or extension prosthesis, is designed to fit the limb without any surgical correction.[9]

The femoral deformity (short, flexed, abducted, and externally rotated) is accommodated in the hip's funnel proximal socket. Knee joints are often absent in these initial prostheses because the limb is often too long to permit the fitting of a prosthetic foot that also has a knee joint. However, having both is preferable if there is sufficient room exists. This allows the young child to have knee flexion during all developmental phases, so that he or she can one-half kneel, squat, pull to stand, and climb on toys and furniture.

The nonconventional prosthesis is effective in permitting ambulation for the young child.[10, 24] However, as the child grows, this prosthesis poses limitations. Specifically, the continued flexion, abduction, and external rotation of the femoral segment, the anterior limb alignment, the unstable hip, and the flexed knee create a poor lever arm with which to move the prosthesis. Additionally, the foot often lies at the level of the midcalf of the contralateral leg, making placement of the knee joint less than optimal.

Therefore, surgical correction of these problems is designed to make the limb a more efficient lever arm to move the prosthesis. The surgical options include knee arthrodeses, foot amputation, limb rotationplasty, hip reconstruction, limb lengthening, and iliofemoral arthrodesis (see Surgical therapy).

The treatment of children with bilateral PFFD is different from that of children with unilateral PFFD.[1] Some have argued against operative treatment because most of these defects are Aitken class D defects, so that these children walk on their natural feet.[14] The main difficulties with these children are limb-length discrepancies and foot deformities.

Surgical releases and orthotic use generally can provide for a useful foot. Therefore, in persons with bilateral disease, the feet should be preserved.[9, 14] Because these children will walk without the use of prostheses for most of their lives, knee fusions are not indicated. Additionally, Van Nes osteotomies should not be performed in patients with bilateral disease.[25, 26, 27]

When present, significant limb-length inequalities pose a difficult dilemma. This is because of the problem of shortening the child more versus the difficulty of lengthening these limbs. In one study of 91 patients with PFFD, 29 had bilateral involvement, and of these, males were affected nearly twice as often as females.[10]

Next

Surgical Therapy

Knee arthrodesis

Knee arthrodesis is performed commonly in children with PFFD. It allows for a longer and more efficient lever arm, as well as a limb that is more easily contained within the prosthesis.[1] The knee should be fused in neutral or slight extension.[24] An additional advantage of knee fusions is that the muscles can act more efficiently across the hip joint.[9]

Generally, within 6 months of knee fusion and prosthetic fitting, the flexion and abduction deformity at the hip joint will correct, thereby aligning the extremity under the body axis.[1, 7] Depending on the femoral length, as well as that of the entire extremity, it is often beneficial to excise one or both of the physes about the knee at the time of fusion. These fusions are performed commonly in children aged 2-3 years.

In their series, Gillespie and Torode noted that most of their patients benefited from knee fusions.[1] The exceptions were those individuals who already had congenital knee fusions and those persons who had extremely short femoral segments (ie, the knee joints were so close to the pelvis that instability and flexion contractures were of little consequence). Traction injuries of the sciatic nerve have been reported after knee fusion due to sudden knee extension.

Foot amputation

Amputation, which often is best performed at the time of knee fusion, acts to shorten the newly created lever arm. This is often desirable because the new lever arm, which is composed of the fused femur and tibia, must be shortened to accommodate a mechanical knee when the child is older. Additionally, with growth, the foot becomes more difficult to accommodate in a cosmetically acceptable prosthesis.[1]

The Syme amputation has been widely performed and provides a superior end-bearing stump for immediate prosthetic fitting.[9] The Boyd amputation, which saves the entire calcaneus, is another option. The calcaneus is fused to the distal tibia, thereby creating a bulbous heel pad that facilitates prosthetic suspension. When only a portion of the calcaneus is retained and fused to the distal tibia, the heel pad remains centered, resisting the tendency for migration.[7]

Van Nes rotationplasty

The Van Nes tibial rotationplasty was first described by Borggreve in 1930 and subsequently popularized by Van Nes.[28, 29] In this procedure, the limb is rotated 180º; this is accomplished through the knee arthrodesis, the tibia, or both. The ultimate goal at maturity is to have the ankle of the short limb at the level of the contralateral knee, with the foot now acting like the residual tibia in a below-the-knee amputation.

Active control of the prosthetic knee is the most obvious advantage of rotationplasty. The function obtained after a Van Nes procedure is significantly greater than that of an above-the-knee prosthesis after knee fusion and Syme amputation.[25] Furthermore, the metabolic energy expenditure and oxygen consumption are lower than they are in patients who have undergone Syme amputation combined with knee arthrodesis.[25, 30]

Reasonable preoperative ankle and foot function are required for the ankle to serve as a knee.[26, 27] This is not always the case, because up to 70% of children with PFFD have an ipsilateral fibular deficiency.[14] Some valgus alignment of the foot and ankle can be accommodated in the prosthesis. However, severe valgus and equinus deformities with a deficient foot are a contraindication to the rotationplasty.

Preoperative toe and ankle strengthening is helpful because these structures power the new knee joint. Equinus position places the foot in a position of mechanical advantage and is, therefore, emphasized. Although hip instability and coxa vara are not contraindications to the Van Nes procedure, a stable hip allows for a more cosmetically acceptable prosthetic gait that is also less fatiguing.[27]

The two problems encountered with the Van Nes rotationplasty are (1) failure to achieve sufficient rotation at surgery and (2) subsequent derotation with continued growth.[26] Accordingly, some clinicians have advocated waiting until the child is aged 12 years before performing this procedure.[27] . The incidence of derotation can be decreased if a sufficient amount of bone is removed at the time of rotationplasty.[1]

An additional disadvantage is the unattractive appearance of a leg in which the foot has been reversed. In an attempt to improve the appearance, the toes often are removed; however, this removal often leads to a loss in sense of position as well as a loss in power. In contrast, there are reports of good patient acceptance with acceptable cosmesis by patients, parents, prosthetists, and surgeons.[25, 26, 27] Remember that a Syme amputation serves as the salvage procedure for a failed Van Nes procedure.

Hip stabilization

Some controversy exists about the value of surgical procedures to stabilize the hip. Deficiencies in both the osseous anatomy, as well as the hip musculature, result in hip instability in most patients with PFFD. Aitken class A and B deficiencies have a femoral head within the acetabulum; therefore, some clinicians support surgical correction of the varus deformity and pseudarthrosis.

The bony stability of the femoral-pelvic articulation requires consideration. In those patients in whom lengthening is planned, achievement of good femoral head containment is necessary; this often requires acetabular procedures. In patients with class C or class D involvement, attempts at reconstruction are futile.[7]

Iliofemoral arthrodesis

Two different kinds of arthrodesis have been described in an attempt to address the hip instability. The fusion is performed to establish a stable union between the femur and pelvis, thereby eliminating pistoning. Additionally, prosthetic fitting is simplified and the gait is steadier. It is indicated in persons in whom a femoral deficiency with an unstable acetabulum is present, as in Aitken class C and class D deficiencies.

Steel described fusing the distal femoral segment to the pelvis; the femur is flexed 90º, making it perpendicular to the body axis and parallel to the floor. As a result, when these patients extend their anatomic knees, they are effecting hip flexion. Conversely, knee flexion functions as hip extension.[31, 32] In a study of 22 patients at a minimum 10-year follow-up, all had solid bony fusions and none had the fusions taken down or revised to an arthroplasty at skeletal maturity.[32]

Brown described a second procedure in which a rotationplasty is performed in conjunction with an iliofemoral arthrodesis.[33] In this case, the distal femur is rotated 180º prior to fusion, with its axis parallel with that of the body. Similar to the Van Nes rotationplasty, the knee functions as the hip joint and the ankle serves as the knee, thereby enabling these patients to function as below-knee amputees.

Lengthening procedures

These operations most commonly are performed in patients with congenital femoral deficiencies who do not have focal defects. The appropriate candidate has a congenital hypoplastic femur in which the hip and knee can be made functional. In a review of the experience at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, successful femoral lengthening of up to 20% was possible with few complications. Beyond this, posterior knee subluxation and hip dislocation occurred.[1, 34]

Herzenberg et al reported on congenital femoral deficiency in children treated with femoral lengthening.[2] A common complication is fracture soon after removal of the external fixator, often despite prophylactic hip spica cast application. The authors treated nine such fractures, most of which were spontaneous events resulting in transverse fracture through regenerate bone or pin sites. All were stabilized with intramedullary Rush pins placed with special insertion techniques, and union was achieved without significant complications.[2]

Aston et al performed a retrospective review of 30 femoral lengthenings in 27 patients with congenital short femurs using the Ilizarov technique.[4] On the basis of their findings, the authors recommended that in this group of patients, lengthening of the femur with an Ilizarov construct be carried out through a proximal osteotomy over a Rush nail. They also recommended that lengthening be limited to a maximum of 6 cm during one treatment, or 20% of the original length of the femur, to reduce the risk of complications.

Previous
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Mark C Lee, MD Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedics, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center

Mark C Lee, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Connecticut State Medical Society, Scoliosis Research Society, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America, Connecticut Orthopaedic Society

Disclosure: Received honoraria from Synthes-Depuy for speaking and teaching.

Coauthor(s)

Scott S Mallozzi, MD, MSc Resident Physician, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

B Sonny Bal, MD, JD, MBA Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine

B Sonny Bal, MD, JD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Disclosure: Received none from Bonesmart.org for online orthopaedic marketing and information portal; Received none from OrthoMind for social networking for orthopaedic surgeons; Received stock options and compensation from Amedica Corporation for manufacturer of orthopaedic implants; Received ownership interest from BalBrenner LLC for employment; Received none from ConforMIS for consulting; Received none from Microport for consulting.

Chief Editor

William L Jaffe, MD Clinical Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine; Vice Chairman, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases

William L Jaffe, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Association, American College of Surgeons, Eastern Orthopaedic Association, New York Academy of Medicine

Disclosure: Received consulting fee from Stryker Orthopaedics for speaking and teaching.

Additional Contributors

B Sonny Bal, MD, JD, MBA Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine

B Sonny Bal, MD, JD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Disclosure: Received none from Bonesmart.org for online orthopaedic marketing and information portal; Received none from OrthoMind for social networking for orthopaedic surgeons; Received stock options and compensation from Amedica Corporation for manufacturer of orthopaedic implants; Received ownership interest from BalBrenner LLC for employment; Received none from ConforMIS for consulting; Received none from Microport for consulting.

Acknowledgements

Michael G Dennis, MD Consulting Surgeon, Orthopedic Care and Sports Medicine Center, Aventura Hospital and Medical Center

Michael G Dennis, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and American Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. James Hale, MD Staff Physician, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Joint Diseases

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

William L Jaffe, MD Clinical Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine; Vice Chairman, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases

William L Jaffe, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Association, Eastern Orthopaedic Association, and New York Academy of Medicine

Disclosure: Stryker Orthopaedics Consulting fee Speaking and teaching

David Scher, MD Clinical Instructor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York University

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Gillespie R, Torode IP. Classification and management of congenital abnormalities of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1983 Nov. 65(5):557-68. [Medline].

  2. Herzenberg JE, Branfoot T, Paley D, Violante FH. Femoral nailing to treat fractures after lengthening for congenital femoral deficiency in young children. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2010 Mar. 19(2):150-4. [Medline].

  3. Chomiak J, Horák M, Masek M, Frydrychová M, Dungl P. Computed tomographic angiography in proximal femoral focal deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Aug. 91(8):1954-64. [Medline].

  4. Aston WJ, Calder PR, Baker D, Hartley J, Hill RA. Lengthening of the congenital short femur using the Ilizarov technique: a single-surgeon series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Jul. 91(7):962-7. [Medline].

  5. Chomiak J, Podškubka A, Dungl P, Ošt'ádal M, Frydrychová M. Cruciate Ligaments in Proximal Femoral Focal Deficiency: Arthroscopic Assessment. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012 Jan. 32(1):21-28. [Medline].

  6. Oppenheim WL, Setoguchi Y, Fowler E. Overview and comparison of Syme's amputation and knee fusion with the van Nes rotationplasty procedure in proximal femoral focal deficiency. In: Herring JA, Birch J, eds. The Child With a Limb Deficiency. Chicago, Ill:. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 1998:

  7. Epps CH. Proximal femoral focal deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Jul. 65(6):867-70. [Medline].

  8. Boden SD, Fallon MD, Davidson R. Proximal femoral focal deficiency. Evidence for a defect in proliferation and maturation of chondrocytes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Sep. 71(8):1119-29. [Medline].

  9. Panting AL, Williams PF. Proximal femoral focal deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1978 Feb. 60(1):46-52. [Medline].

  10. Koman LA, Meyer LC, Warren FH. Proximal femoral focal deficiency: a 50-year experience. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1982 Jun. 24(3):344-55. [Medline].

  11. Aitken GT. Amputation as a treatment for certain lower-extremity congenital abnormalities. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959 Oct. 41-A:1267-85. [Medline].

  12. Gillespie R. Classification of congenital abnormalities of the femur. In: Herring JA, Birch J, eds. The Child With a Limb Deficiency. Chicago, Ill:. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 1998:

  13. Grogan DP, Holt GR, Ogden JA. Talocalcaneal coalition in patients who have fibular hemimelia or proximal femoral focal deficiency. A comparison of the radiographic and pathological findings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994 Sep. 76(9):1363-70. [Medline].

  14. Aitken GT. Proximal femoral focal deficiency-Definition, classification, and management. In: Aitken GT, ed. Proximal Femoral Focal Deficiency. A Congenital Anomaly. Washington, DC:. National Academy of Sciences. 1969:

  15. Amstutz HC. The morphology, natural history and treatment of proximal femoral focal deficiencies. In: Aitken GT, ed. Proximal Femoral Focal Deficiency. A Congenital Anomaly. Washington, DC:. National Academy of Sciences. 1969:

  16. Pappas AM. Congenital abnormalities of the femur and related lower extremity malformations: classification and treatment. J Pediatr Orthop. 1983 Feb. 3(1):45-60. [Medline].

  17. Hamanishi C. Congenital short femur. Clinical, genetic and epidemiological comparison of the naturally occurring condition with that caused by thalidomide. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980 Aug. 62(3):307-20. [Medline].

  18. Fixsen JA, Lloyd-Roberts GC. The natural history and early treatment of proximal femoral dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1974 Feb. 56(1):86-95. [Medline].

  19. Maldjian C, Patel TY, Klein RM, Smith RC. Efficacy of MRI in classifying proximal focal femoral deficiency. Skeletal Radiol. 2007 Mar. 36(3):215-20. [Medline].

  20. Bernaerts A, Pouillon M, De Ridder K, Vanhoenacker F. Value of magnetic resonance imaging in early assessment of proximal femoral focal deficiency (PFFD). JBR-BTR. 2006 Nov-Dec. 89(6):325-7. [Medline].

  21. Griffith SI, McCarthy JJ, Davidson RS. Comparison of the complication rates between first and second (repeated) lengthening in the same limb segment. J Pediatr Orthop. 2006 Jul-Aug. 26(4):534-6. [Medline].

  22. Wick JM, Alexander KM. Rotationplasty--a unique surgical procedure with a functional outcome. AORN J. 2006 Aug. 84(2):190-214; quiz 215-8. [Medline].

  23. Fuchs B, Sim FH. Rotationplasty about the knee: surgical technique and anatomical considerations. Clin Anat. 2004 May. 17(4):345-53. [Medline].

  24. Koman LA, Meyer LC, Warren FH. Proximal femoral focal deficiency: natural history and treatment. Clin Orthop. 1982 Jan-Feb. (162):135-43. [Medline].

  25. Alman BA, Krajbich JI, Hubbard S. Proximal femoral focal deficiency: results of rotationplasty and Syme amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Dec. 77(12):1876-82. [Medline].

  26. Friscia DA, Moseley CF, Oppenheim WL. Rotational osteotomy for proximal femoral focal deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Oct. 71(9):1386-92. [Medline].

  27. Kostuik JP, Gillespie R, Hall JE, Hubbard S. Van Nes rotational osteotomy for treatment of proximal femoral focal deficiency and congenital short femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975 Dec. 57(8):1039-46. [Medline].

  28. Borggreve J. Kniegelenksersatz durch das in der Beinlangsachse um 180 degree gedrehte fussgelenk. Arch Orthop. 1930. 28:175-178.

  29. Van Nes CP. Rotation-plasty for congenital defects of the femur. Making use of the shortened limb to control the knee joint of a prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1950. 32B:12-16.

  30. Fowler E, Zernicke R, Setoguchi Y, Oppenheim W. Energy expenditure during walking by children who have proximal femoral focal deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 Dec. 78(12):1857-62. [Medline].

  31. Steel HH, Lin PS, Betz RR, et al. Iliofemoral fusion for proximal femoral focal deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987 Jul. 69(6):837-43. [Medline].

  32. Steel HH. Iliofemoral fusion for proximal femoral focal deficiency. In: Herring, JA, Birch J, eds. The Child With a Limb Deficiency. Chicago, Ill:. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 1998:

  33. Brown KLB. Rotationplasty with hip stabilization in congenital femoral deficiency. In: Herring JA, Birch J, eds. The Child With a Limb Deficiency. Chicago, Ill:. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 1998:

  34. Jones DC, Moseley CF. Subluxation of the knee as a complication of femoral lengthening by the Wagner technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985 Jan. 67(1):33-5. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.