Paediatrics

Salter Innominate Osteotomy

Surgical technique guide for the Salter innominate osteotomy - redirectional single pelvic osteotomy for developmental dysplasia of the hip and residual acetabular dysplasia, with operative steps, danger zones and comparison with Pemberton and Dega osteotomies

Core Procedure
advanced
By OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow โ€ข Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

High-yield overview

Redirectional single innominate osteotomy hinging on the symphysis pubis for DDH and acetabular dysplasia | advanced

Surgical Imaging

Salter innominate osteotomy technique
Salter innominate osteotomy: a complete cut from the sciatic notch to the anterior inferior iliac spine, the acetabular fragment rotated anterolaterally on the symphysis-pubis hinge, held open by a triangular iliac graft and two pins.Credit: AI-generated medical image ยท OrthoVellum
Salter versus Pemberton versus Dega osteotomies
Salter (complete cut, redirects on the symphysis) versus Pemberton (incomplete, hinges on the triradiate cartilage, reduces volume) versus Dega (incomplete, posterior cortical hinge) โ€” redirection versus reshaping.Credit: AI-generated medical image ยท OrthoVellum
Pre and post Salter osteotomy pelvic radiographs
Pre- and post-operative pelvic radiographs: a shallow dysplastic acetabulum with poor lateral coverage, corrected by Salter osteotomy with graft and pins to give concentric anterolateral femoral-head cover.Credit: AI-generated medical image ยท OrthoVellum

Critical Danger Structures and Exam Traps

Sciatic Nerve at the Sciatic Notch

Location: The posterior limb of the innominate osteotomy exits at the greater sciatic notch, where the Gigli saw (or osteotome) emerges. The sciatic nerve lies immediately posterior to the notch.

Risk: Direct laceration by the saw or osteotome, or traction injury during forward rotation and graft insertion. Protect with a curved retractor (e.g. a malleable or Hohmann) seated in the notch, keep the periosteal sleeve intact, and pass the Gigli saw subperiosteally.

Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve

Location: The LFCN crosses the anterior approach near the anterior superior iliac spine, deep to the inguinal ligament, in the interval used for the bikini / anterior Smith-Petersen exposure.

Risk: Stretch or transection causes meralgia paraesthetica (anterolateral thigh numbness/dysaesthesia). Identify and protect it medially; develop the interval lateral to the nerve and avoid vigorous medial retraction.

Femoral Head Blood Supply (MFCA)

Location: The medial femoral circumflex artery (and its terminal retinacular branches) is the dominant supply to the femoral head; the lateral femoral circumflex contributes anteriorly.

Risk: Avascular necrosis is the most feared complication โ€” usually from forceful concentric reduction, excessive pressure on a reduced head, or aggressive positioning, NOT from the pelvic cut itself. Avoid forced abduction/internal rotation and confirm a tension-free reduction.

Wrong Hinge โ€” Salter vs Pemberton

The trap: Stating that the Salter hinges on the triradiate cartilage. It does NOT โ€” the Salter hinges on the symphysis pubis and redirects the whole acetabulum.

The fix: Salter = complete cut, hinge at symphysis, REDIRECTS coverage, volume unchanged. Pemberton = incomplete cut, hinge at triradiate cartilage, RESHAPES and reduces volume. Confusing these is the classic viva failure.

Non-Concentric / Irreducible Hip

The trap: Performing a redirectional osteotomy on a hip that is not concentrically reduced. The Salter cannot reduce a dislocated hip โ€” it only reorients an acetabulum over a head that is already congruent and centred.

The fix: Confirm concentric reduction (clinically, on arthrogram or imaging) first. A high or irreducible dislocation requires open reduction, often with femoral shortening, before or at the same time as the pelvic osteotomy.

Over- and Under-correction

Why it matters: A single Salter gives only ~15 degrees of correction. Over-rotation causes posterior/lateral under-coverage or impingement and excessive anterior cover; under-rotation leaves residual dysplasia and a persistently steep acetabular index.

The fix: Judge correction intraoperatively by direct inspection of head cover and on-table imaging; the AIIS of the distal fragment should rotate to overlie or lateral to the femoral head, with the acetabular index falling toward normal.

Mnemonic

S.A.L.T.E.RSALTER โ€” Principles of the Innominate Osteotomy

Mnemonic

R.E.D.I.R.E.C.TREDIRECT โ€” Choosing and Planning the Osteotomy

Surgical Indications

Core Indication

The Salter innominate osteotomy is a single redirectional pelvic osteotomy used to improve femoral head coverage in a concentrically reduced but dysplastic hip. It rotates an intact, adequately shaped acetabulum to improve anterior and lateral cover in DDH and residual acetabular dysplasia.

Specific Indications

  • Residual acetabular dysplasia in DDH after closed or open reduction, with a persistently high acetabular index in a child roughly 18 months to 6 years of age
  • Primary treatment of DDH in the walking child (commonly combined with open reduction in the older or higher hip)
  • Anterolateral acetabular deficiency with a congruent, spherical femoral head and a concentric reduction
  • Neuromuscular or syndromic dysplasia in selected cases where the symphysis remains mobile (often combined with femoral surgery)

Prerequisites (must ALL be satisfied)

  • Concentric reducibility โ€” the head must sit congruently in the acetabulum
  • Spherical, congruent femoral head โ€” redirection of an incongruent joint worsens load distribution
  • Open triradiate cartilage and mobile symphysis pubis โ€” the symphysis must rotate as the hinge
  • A correctable deficiency within ~15 degrees โ€” the limit of a single Salter

Contraindications

Absolute:

  • Irreducible or non-concentric hip without prior/concurrent open reduction
  • Stiff symphysis pubis (typically older child / adolescent) โ€” single Salter cannot rotate
  • Markedly incongruent or aspherical femoral head (consider reshaping or salvage procedure)

Relative:

  • Deformity requiring greater than ~15 degrees of correction (combine with femoral osteotomy or choose periacetabular / reshaping procedure)
  • Severe fixed adduction contracture (release adductors first)
  • Active infection

Evidence and Outcomes

Original Description and Principle

  • Salter (1961): Original description of the innominate osteotomy โ€” a complete cut from the sciatic notch to the AIIS, rotation of the distal fragment about the symphysis pubis, and a bone graft wedge held by two pins. Established the concept of redirecting rather than reshaping the acetabulum (see EvidenceCard below for the verified reprint citation).
  • Salter & Dubos (1974): Long-term review confirming superior outcomes when reduction and osteotomy are performed in the younger child and emphasising concentric reduction as the prerequisite.

Reported Outcomes

  • Good to excellent results in roughly 75-90% of appropriately selected hips operated before significant secondary changes, with improvement in acetabular index and centre-edge angle
  • Outcomes decline with increasing age at surgery and with pre-existing avascular changes or incongruity; series consistently show better results when reduction/osteotomy is achieved before about 4 years of age
  • Acetabular index typically improves by roughly 10-15 degrees, reflecting the ~15-degree correction ceiling
  • The osteotomy also corrects the direction of the acetabulum (anterolateral) rather than its depth

Verified Evidence

Innominate osteotomy in the treatment of congenital dislocation and subluxation of the hip (original description, reprinted as 'The Classic')

Landmark Technique
Salter RB โ€ข J Bone Joint Surg Br (reprinted in Clin Orthop Relat Res)
Clinical Implication: The foundational paper that defines the Salter osteotomy: a redirectional procedure hinging on the symphysis pubis โ€” the single most-tested conceptual point in the viva.

The first fifteen years' personal experience with innominate osteotomy in the treatment of congenital dislocation and subluxation of the hip

Level IV
Salter RB, Dubos JP โ€ข Clin Orthop Relat Res
Clinical Implication: Cements the prerequisites โ€” a concentrically reduced, congruent hip in a young child โ€” and frames AVN as a reduction-pressure phenomenon to be avoided by detensioning.

The effectiveness of the Salter innominate osteotomy in the treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip

Level IV
Barrett WP, Staheli LT, Chew DE โ€ข J Bone Joint Surg Am
Clinical Implication: Independent confirmation of durable coverage from the Salter and a clear age effect โ€” operate before about 4 years where possible for the best result.

Radiographic outcome following treatment of residual hip dysplasia with Pemberton versus Salter osteotomy: comparison of results in patients followed to skeletal maturity

Level III
Sucato DJ, Brabham CE, De La Rocha A, Podeszwa DA, Karol LA โ€ข J Bone Joint Surg Am
Clinical Implication: Modern long-term data: both redirection (Salter) and reshaping (Pemberton) durably correct residual dysplasia, but the Salter may yield a better final acetabular index โ€” useful when comparing the two in the viva.

Pelvic osteotomies for the treatment of hip dysplasia in children and young adults

Guideline
Gillingham BL, Sanchez AA, Wenger DR โ€ข J Am Acad Orthop Surg
Clinical Implication: Anchors the decision algorithm: choose the osteotomy by age, triradiate status and whether the hip is congruently reducible โ€” and know what replaces the Salter once the symphysis/triradiate stiffen.

Salter vs Pemberton vs Dega โ€” Redirectional vs Reshaping Osteotomies


Clinical Decision Scenarios

Use these scenarios to practise clinical reasoning and management decisions

CLINICAL SCENARIOAdvanced

CLINICAL PROMPT

"A 3-year-old girl has residual acetabular dysplasia following closed reduction of DDH at 14 months. She now walks with a mild limp. Radiographs show a concentrically reduced hip with a persistently high acetabular index and deficient anterolateral coverage. The femoral head is spherical and congruent. What pelvic procedure would you consider and why?"

PRACTICAL APPROACH
This child has residual acetabular dysplasia with a concentrically reduced, congruent, spherical hip and an anterolateral coverage deficiency in the ideal age range โ€” this is a classic indication for a Salter innominate osteotomy. **Why a Salter is appropriate**: She satisfies the prerequisites โ€” a concentric reduction, a spherical congruent femoral head, an open triradiate cartilage and (at 3 years) a mobile symphysis pubis. Her deficiency is anterolateral, which is exactly the coverage the Salter improves. The deformity is within the ~15-degree correction the Salter can achieve. **What the Salter does**: It is a complete innominate osteotomy running from the sciatic notch to just above the AIIS. The distal acetabular fragment, still tethered at the pubic symphysis, is rotated forward, downward and laterally about that symphyseal hinge, improving anterior and lateral head coverage. Crucially it *redirects* the acetabulum โ€” it does not change its volume or shape. **Planning**: I would confirm concentric reduction (clinically and on imaging, with an arthrogram if any doubt). I would release the adductors if there were a contracture. I would hold the correction with a bone wedge from the anterior iliac crest and two threaded pins, confirm orientation on imaging, repair the apophysis and apply a spica for around six weeks. **Why not Pemberton/Dega here**: Those reshape and reduce acetabular volume by hinging through the triradiate cartilage โ€” appropriate when more volume correction is needed or for a capacious/globally deficient acetabulum. With a well-shaped acetabulum simply mal-oriented anterolaterally and a deficiency within ~15 degrees, redirection with a Salter is the cleaner solution. I would only add a femoral osteotomy if the head were higher, the child older or the reduction tight.
CLINICAL SCENARIOAdvanced

CLINICAL PROMPT

"An examiner asks you to compare the Salter, Pemberton and Dega osteotomies. What are the key conceptual differences?"

PRACTICAL APPROACH
The fundamental division is between redirectional and reshaping osteotomies, and the discriminator is the hinge. **Salter (redirectional)**: A *complete* innominate osteotomy from the sciatic notch to the AIIS. The distal fragment, tethered only at the pubic symphysis, rotates about that **symphyseal hinge**. It *redirects* the whole acetabulum forward, downward and laterally to improve anterior and lateral coverage. The acetabular **volume and shape are unchanged** โ€” only orientation changes. Correction is limited to about 15 degrees, it requires a mobile symphysis, and it is held with a graft wedge and pins. It tends to slightly lengthen the limb. **Pemberton (reshaping)**: An *incomplete* periacetabular osteotomy that hinges through the **triradiate cartilage**. It bends the acetabular roof down, *reshaping* the acetabulum and **reducing its volume**. It is useful for a capacious or globally dysplastic acetabulum and gives versatile anterolateral coverage. Because it hinges through the triradiate, it depends on an open triradiate cartilage and can affect its growth. **Dega (reshaping)**: An *incomplete* osteotomy that leaves the **posterior/medial cortex (and triradiate) intact** as the hinge and bends the deficient acetabular segment down. It is *deficiency-directed* โ€” the surgeon can tailor coverage anteriorly, laterally or posteriorly depending on where the cut and graft are placed, again reducing volume. **Bottom line**: Salter rotates an intact acetabulum on the symphysis (volume unchanged); Pemberton and Dega reshape the acetabulum by hinging on/near the triradiate cartilage (volume reduced). Choose Salter for a well-shaped but maloriented acetabulum needing modest anterolateral correction; choose a reshaping osteotomy when more volume change or directional tailoring is required.
CLINICAL SCENARIOAdvanced

CLINICAL PROMPT

"Two years after a Salter osteotomy combined with open reduction for DDH, a child has hip stiffness and serial radiographs show fragmentation and flattening of the femoral head. What has happened, why, and how could it have been minimised?"

PRACTICAL APPROACH
This is avascular necrosis of the femoral head โ€” the most feared complication after surgery for DDH and the one that most threatens the long-term result. **Recognition**: Serial radiographs showing failure of the ossific nucleus to grow, increased density, fragmentation and subsequent flattening of the head, often with associated stiffness, are diagnostic of AVN. The pattern and severity can be graded (e.g. Kalamchi-MacEwen), and lateral physeal involvement predicts the worst deformity. **Mechanism**: AVN in this setting is largely iatrogenic and pressure-related rather than caused by the pelvic cut itself. The dominant supply is the medial femoral circumflex artery with its retinacular branches. A tight or forcefully held reduction โ€” especially in extremes of abduction and internal rotation โ€” kinks or compresses this supply. Risk is higher in the older child and the higher dislocation where the reduction is under tension. **How it could have been minimised**: - **Detension the reduction**: in an older child or high hip, add a femoral shortening (and derotation/varus) osteotomy so the head sits without pressure - **Avoid the extreme safe-zone positions**: do not immobilise in forced abduction/internal rotation - **Confirm a concentric, tension-free reduction** intraoperatively before accepting it - **Clear all obstacles to reduction** at open reduction so the head seats easily rather than being forced in - **Gentle technique and avoidance of repeated forceful reductions** **Management now**: Protect the hip, maintain containment and range, and monitor with serial imaging. Established deformity at maturity (e.g. coxa magna, head-neck deformity, growth arrest with shortening or trochanteric overgrowth) may require later reconstructive surgery such as containment, realignment osteotomy or trochanteric advancement, individualised to the deformity.

Salter Innominate Osteotomy โ€” Exam Day Summary

Clinical summary

References

  1. Salter RB (1961, reprinted as 'The Classic'). Innominate osteotomy in the treatment of congenital dislocation and subluxation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 43-B:518 (reprinted Clin Orthop Relat Res). PMID 369757. โ€” Original description of the redirectional innominate osteotomy, the symphysis pubis as the hinge, and the bone-graft-and-pin fixation principle.

  2. Salter RB (1966). Role of innominate osteotomy in the treatment of congenital dislocation and subluxation of the hip in the older child. J Bone Joint Surg Am 48:1413-39. PMID 5921797. โ€” Extends the technique to the older child and details combined open reduction.

  3. Salter RB, Dubos JP (1974). The first fifteen years' personal experience with innominate osteotomy in the treatment of congenital dislocation and subluxation of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 98:72-103. PMID 4817246. DOI 10.1097/00003086-197401000-00009. โ€” Long-term series emphasising concentric reduction as a prerequisite and better outcomes in the younger child.

  4. Pemberton PA (1965). Pericapsular osteotomy of the ilium for treatment of congenital subluxation and dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 47:65-86. PMID 14256975. โ€” Description of the reshaping pericapsular osteotomy hinging on the triradiate cartilage, the key contrast to the Salter.

  5. Barrett WP, Staheli LT, Chew DE (1986). The effectiveness of the Salter innominate osteotomy in the treatment of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:79-87. PMID 3941122. โ€” Outcome series quantifying coverage and results, with a clear benefit of operating before 4 years.

  6. Sucato DJ, Brabham CE, De La Rocha A, Podeszwa DA, Karol LA (2024). Radiographic outcome following treatment of residual hip dysplasia with Pemberton versus Salter osteotomy: comparison of results in patients followed to skeletal maturity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 107:46-52. PMID 39509475. DOI 10.2106/JBJS.23.01346. โ€” Modern comparison to maturity showing a better final acetabular index after Salter.

  7. Sutherland DH, Greenfield R (1977). Double innominate osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59:1082-91. PMID 591540. โ€” Adds a pubic osteotomy to increase rotation and coverage in the older child, where a single Salter is insufficient.

  8. Gillingham BL, Sanchez AA, Wenger DR (1999). Pelvic osteotomies for the treatment of hip dysplasia in children and young adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 7:325-37. PMID 10504359. DOI 10.5435/00124635-199909000-00005. โ€” Review framework comparing redirectional, reshaping and salvage pelvic osteotomies and their indications.