14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Posteromedial bowing of the tibia: a benign condition or a case for limb reconstruction?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To review the initial deformity and subsequent remodelling in posteromedial bowing of the tibia and the outcome of limb reconstruction in this condition.

          Patients and Methods

          In all, 38 patients with posteromedial bowing of the tibia presenting between 2000 and 2016 were identified. Mean follow-up from presentation was 78 months. A total of 17 patients underwent lengthening and deformity correction surgery, whilst three further patients are awaiting lengthening and deformity correction procedures.

          Results

          The greatest correction of deformity occurred in the first year of life, but after the age of four years, remodelling was limited. The absolute leg-length discrepancy (LLD) increased throughout growth with a mean 14.3% discrepancy in tibial length. In the lengthening group, mean length gained per episode was 45 mm (35 to 60). Mean duration in frame was 192 days, with a mean healing index of 42.4 days/cm. Significantly higher rates of recurrence in LLD were seen in those undergoing lengthening under the age of ten years (p = 0.046). Four contralateral epiphysiodeses were also performed.

          Conclusion

          Posteromedial bowing of the tibia improves spontaneously during the first years of life, but in 20/38 (53%) patients, limb reconstruction was indicated for significant residual deformity and/or worsening LLD. For larger discrepancies and persistent deformity, limb reconstruction with a hexapod external fixator should be considered as part of the treatment options.

          Level of evidence

          Level IV (Case series)

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Multiplier method for predicting limb-length discrepancy.

          In patients with a congenital or developmental limb-length discrepancy, the short limb grows at a rate proportional to that of the normal, long limb. This is the basis of predicting limb-length discrepancy with existing methods, which are complicated and require multiple data points. The purpose of our study was to derive a simple arithmetic formula that can easily and accurately predict limb-length discrepancy at skeletal maturity. Using available databases, we divided the femoral and tibial lengths at skeletal maturity by the femoral and tibial lengths at each age for each percentile group. The resultant number was called the multiplier. Using the multiplier, we derived formulae to predict the limb-length discrepancy and the amount of growth remaining. We verified the accuracy of these formulae by evaluating two groups of patients with congenital shortening who were managed with epiphysiodesis or limb-lengthening. We also calculated and compared the multipliers for other databases according to radiographic, clinical, and anthropological lower-limb measurements. The multipliers for the femur and tibia were equivalent in all percentile groups, varying only by age and gender. Because congenital limb-length discrepancy increases at a rate proportional to growth, the discrepancy at maturity can be calculated as the current discrepancy times the multiplier for the current age and the gender. This calculation can be performed with use of a single measurement of limb-length discrepancy. For progressive developmental (noncongenital) discrepancies, the discrepancy at skeletal maturity can be calculated as the current discrepancy plus the growth inhibition times the amount of growth remaining. The timing of the epiphysiodesis can also be calculated with the multiplier. The predictions made with use of the multiplier method correlated well with those made with use of the Moseley method as well as with the actual limb-length discrepancy in both the limb-lengthening and epiphysiodesis groups. The multipliers derived from the radiographic, clinical, and anthropological measurements of femora and tibiae were all similar to each other despite differences in race, ethnicity, and generation. The multiplier method allows for a quick calculation of the predicted limb-length discrepancy at skeletal maturity, without the need to plot graphs, and is based on as few as one or two measurements. This method is independent of percentile groups and is the same for the prediction of femoral, tibial, and total-limb lengths. The multiplier values are also independent of generation, height, socioeconomic class, ethnicity, and race. We verified the accuracy of this method clinically by evaluating patients who had been managed with limb-lengthening or epiphysiodesis. The method was also comparable with or more accurate than the Moseley method of limb-length prediction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Variables affecting time to bone healing during limb lengthening.

            Radiographs and charts of 114 consecutive patients who underwent 140 lower-extremity bone-segment lengthening procedures using the Ilizarov external fixator were reviewed. Patient age, bone segment (femur, tibia), corticotomy level (metaphyseal, diaphyseal, double level), and distraction gap (DG) were recorded. Distraction-consolidation time (DCT) was defined as the interval in months from the date of the corticotomy until the DG was healed according to radiographic and manual testing criteria. Distraction-consolidation time had a direct linear relationship with the magnitude of the DG. Distraction--consolidation time versus DG was significantly less for femoral than tibial lengthening. Patients 20 years and older healed slower than patients younger than the age of 20 years. Patients 20 to 29 years old healed faster than patients older than 30 years and slower than patients younger than 20 years. Diaphyseal lengthening healed more slowly than metaphyseal lengthening. Double-level lengthening reduced the DCT when the DG was greater than 4 cm. Distraction--consolidation index--DCT divided by DG--was not a constant. Distraction--consolidation index decreased with increasing DG. To facilitate prediction of bone-healing time, graphs were developed demonstrating the average treatment time +/- 2 SD expected for a specific amount of lengthening, considering the bone segment, the level of osteotomy, and the age of the patient.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does lengthening and then plating (LAP) shorten duration of external fixation?

              Classic bone lengthening requires patients wear external fixation for the distraction and consolidation phases and there is fracture risk after frame removal. Our technique of lengthening with the Taylor Spatial Frame(TM) and then insertion of a locked plate allows earlier removal of the external fixator during consolidation. Plate insertion is accomplished through a clean pin-free zone avoiding contamination and before frame removal maintaining bone position.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Child Orthop
                J Child Orthop
                jco
                Journal of Children's Orthopaedics
                The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery (London )
                1863-2521
                1863-2548
                1 April 2018
                : 12
                : 2
                : 187-196
                Affiliations
                [1 ]org-nameDepartment of Orthopaedics, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children , London, UK
                [2 ]org-nameCatterall Unit, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital , Stanmore, UK
                Author notes
                [a ] Correspondence should be sent to J. Wright, Catterall Unit, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK. E-mail: jwrightortho@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                1863-2548.12.187
                10.1302/1863-2548.12.170211
                5902754
                6ae39f42-7652-4a15-8b16-7e1283ae74ea
                Copyright © 2018, The author(s)

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.

                History
                : 14 December 2017
                : 15 February 2018
                Categories
                Original Clinical Article
                childrens-orthopaedics, Children’s Orthopaedics

                Orthopedics
                posteromedial bowing,tibia,limb reconstruction,tibial recurvatum
                Orthopedics
                posteromedial bowing, tibia, limb reconstruction, tibial recurvatum

                Comments

                Comment on this article