Clinical consensus recommendations for the non-surgical treatment of children with Perthes’ disease in the UK

Aims

The aim of this study was to produce clinical consensus recommendations about the non-surgical treatment of children with Perthes’ disease. The recommendations are intended to support clinical practice in a condition for which there is no robust evidence to guide optimal care.

Methods

A two-round, modified Delphi study was conducted online. An advisory group of children’s orthopaedic specialists consisting of physiotherapists, surgeons, and clinical nurse specialists designed a survey. In the first round, participants also had the opportunity to suggest new statements. The survey included statements related to ‘Exercises’, ‘Physical activity’, ‘Education/information sharing’, ‘Input from other services’, and ‘Monitoring assessments’. The survey was shared with clinicians who regularly treat children with Perthes’ disease in the UK using clinically relevant specialist groups and social media. A predetermined threshold of ≥ 75% for consensus was used for recommendation, with a threshold of between 70% and 75% being considered as ‘points to consider’.

Results

A total of 40 participants took part in the first round, of whom 31 completed the second round. A total of 87 statements were generated by the advisory group and included in the first round, at the end of which 31 achieved consensus and were removed from the survey, and an additional four statements were generated. A total of 60 statements were included in the second round and 45 achieved the threshold for consensus from both rounds, with three achieving the threshold for ‘points to consider’. The recommendations predominantly included self-management, particularly relating to advice about exercise and education for children with Perthes’ disease and their families.

Conclusion

Children’s orthopaedic specialists have reached consensus on recommendations for non-surgical treatment in Perthes’ disease. These statements will support decisions made in clinical practice and act as a foundation to support clinicians in the absence of robust evidence. The dissemination of these findings and the best way of delivering this care needs careful consideration, which we will continue to explore.