Study Participants & Setting: Studies comparing two or more treatments for hip subluxation in CP for patients aged <21 and reporting rates of resubluxation or reoperation were included. Materials/Methods: Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were systematically searched from 1953-January 13th, 2017, inclusive for comparative studies treating hip subluxation/dislocation in children with CP. Studies were screened for inclusion and characteristics including study design, demographics, radiographic parameters (Migration Index and Neck-Shaft Angle), and frequency of resubluxations/reoperations were extracted in duplicate. Studies were graded for quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Pooled risk estimates (odds ratio for resubluxation/reoperations) were obtained using a fixed effects model due to the low heterogeneity (I2<50). No publication bias was identified. This meta-analysis was performed and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results: Ten retrospective cohort studies were included. Two comparison groups were identified: Combined femoral and pelvic osteotomies vs femoral osteotomies, and femoral osteotomies vs soft-tissue surgery. 10.4% of combined osteotomies had hip resubluxation/reoperation compared to 14.5% for femoral osteotomies alone. The odds ratio for resubluxation/ reoperation was not statistically different for combined osteotomies compared to femoral alone, as shown in Figure 1 (OR=0.59 95%CI: 0.31-1.14). 49.3% of femoral osteotomies had resubluxation/reoperation, compared to 64.4% of soft tissue surgeries. The odds ratio for resubluxation/reoperation was decreased for femoral osteotomies compared to soft tissue procedures, shown in Figure 2 (OR=0.38 95%CI: 0.17-0.86). Conclusions/Significance: Resubluxation/reoperation rates were high. Although there may be a role for soft tissue procedures in delaying eventual bony osteotomies, this study supports the use of femoral osteotomies alone or combined femoral and pelvic osteotomies over soft tissue procedures. This is the first systematic review to statistically pool quantitative results from previous studies on this topic. Botox vs soft tissue procedures could not be included due to insufficient comparative studies on this topic. This meta-analysis is limited by the observational nature and small sample sizes of the included studies, with their inherent risk of bias. It is possible that with larger and higher quality studies, the results and conclusions of this analysis may be altered.