Literature DB >> 10360691

Distraction osteogenesis for lengthening of the tibia in patients who have limb-length discrepancy or short stature.

R Aldegheri1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine the safety and effectiveness of lengthening of the tibia, in patients who have a limb-length discrepancy or a short stature, with use of distraction osteogenesis, a technique based on the principle of distracting the callus that is formed after a subperiosteal osteotomy of the proximal portion of the diaphysis of a long bone.
METHODS: A total of 230 tibial lengthening procedures were done in 150 patients. Seventy procedures were performed because of a limb-length discrepancy, which was secondary to trauma (thirty limbs), congenital fibular hemimelia (twenty-six), poliomyelitis (ten), or infection (four). The remaining 160 procedures were performed because of a short stature, which was secondary to achondroplasia (fifty-eight limbs), Turner syndrome (thirty-four), an idiopathic etiology (twenty-two), hypochondroplasia (twenty), achondroplasia (ten), Ellis-van Creveld syndrome (six), rickets (four), or adrenogenital syndrome, Laron syndrome, or pseudoachondroplasia (two limbs each). The age of the patients at the time of the operation was 18.4+/-6.2 years (average and standard deviation), with a range of six to forty-one years. The procedures were performed according to one of three protocols. In Group A (ninety procedures), an Orthofix telescopic fixator and a variable number of screws were used and the tibiofibular syndesmosis was not stabilized; in Group B (ninety-six procedures), an Orthofix reconstruction system was used, the syndesmosis was stabilized, and a tenotomy of the Achilles tendon was performed; and in Group C (forty-four procedures), an Orthofix Garches lengthening device was used, the syndesmosis was stabilized, and a tenotomy of the Achilles tendon was performed.
RESULTS: At the time of the latest follow-up (average, five years; range, two to seven years), the average gain in length after the seventy procedures performed because of a limb-length discrepancy was 4.0+/-1.98 centimeters (range, 2.5 to 9.5 centimeters), or 14 percent (range, 7 to 45 percent). The average gain in length after the 160 procedures that were performed because of a short stature was 7.8+/-2.28 centimeters (range, 2.5 to fifteen centimeters), or 33 percent (range, 10 to 78 percent). Ten (14 percent) of the seventy procedures performed because of a limb-length discrepancy and forty-six (29 percent) of the 160 performed because of a short stature were associated with a complication. There was only one permanent sequela in the entire series.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the three operative protocols resulted in similar healing indices, the rates of complications differed significantly among the groups (p<0.0001). Group C (the Garches device) had the lowest rate of complications (7 percent). It is important to be aware of potential complications as well as the need for additional procedures in order to avoid predictable problems. These procedures include percutaneous tenotomy of the Achilles tendon and fixation of the distal segment of the fibula to the tibia to maintain the integrity of the tibiotalar articulation and the alignment of the foot.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10360691     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199905000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  24 in total

Review 1.  [Principles of callus distraction].

Authors:  S Hankemeier; L Bastian; T Gosling; C Krettek
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Residual malformations and leg length discrepancy after treatment of fibular hemimelia.

Authors:  Dimosthenis A Alaseirlis; Anastasios V Korompilias; Alexandros E Beris; Panayotis N Soucacos
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 2.359

3.  Bilateral double level tibial lengthening in dwarfism.

Authors:  Rolf D Burghardt; Koichi Yoshino; Naoya Kashiwagi; Shigeo Yoshino; Anil Bhave; Dror Paley; John E Herzenberg
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-06-03

4.  Reconstruction of Large Diaphyseal Defects of the Femur and the Tibia with Autologous Bone.

Authors:  Charles E Dumont; Ulrich G Exner
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2009-01-19       Impact factor: 3.693

5.  Complications of Ilizarov leg lengthening: a comparative study between patients with leg length discrepancy and short stature.

Authors:  B Vargas Barreto; J Caton; Z Merabet; J C Panisset; J P Pracros
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-10-12       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Leg lengthening by distraction osteogenesis using the Ilizarov apparatus: a novel concept of tibia callus subsidence and its influencing factors.

Authors:  Ashok K Shyam; Surya Udai Singh; Hitesh N Modi; Hae-Ryong Song; Seok-Hyun Lee; Hyonggin An
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Clinical implication of sagittal translation in lengthening over nail of tibia.

Authors:  Dong Hoon Lee; Keun Jung Ryu; Sang Heon Song; Kwang Won Park; Hae Ryong Song
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-10-25

8.  Tibial lengthening: extraarticular calcaneotibial screw to prevent ankle equinus.

Authors:  Mohan V Belthur; Dror Paley; Gaurav Jindal; Rolf D Burghardt; Stacy C Specht; John E Herzenberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-18       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  What risk factors predict usage of gastrocsoleus recession during tibial lengthening?

Authors:  S Robert Rozbruch; Samuel Zonshayn; Saravanaraja Muthusamy; Eugene W Borst; Austin T Fragomen; Joseph T Nguyen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  DEXA as a predictor of fixator removal in distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Neil Saran; Reggie C Hamdy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-27       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.