| Literature DB >> 22327836 |
Aristides N Vrettakos1, Dimosthenis C Evaggelidis, Margaritis J Kyrkos, Apostolos V Tsatsos, Alexandros Nenopoulos, Theodoros Beslikas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proximal tibial physeal injuries are quite rare, but their complications can be of great importance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of this injury on the axis and length of a child's limb.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22327836 PMCID: PMC3284663 DOI: 10.1007/s10195-012-0179-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Traumatol ISSN: 1590-9921
Data on the 7 patients that were available for long-term follow-up
| Injury type (Salter–Harris classification) | Patient | Concurrent injuries | Treatment | Initial deformity (4–6 months post-injury) | Mid-term deformity (2.5–3 years post-injury) | Final follow-up (years)a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Axial disturbance | Length disturbance | Axial disturbance | Length disturbance | |||||
| II | 1 | None | Conservative | 0° | 0 mm | 0° | 0 mm | 13.8 |
| 2 | None | Conservative | 4° valgus | 0 mm | 0° | 0 mm | 22.0 | |
| 3 | None | Conservative | 2° valgus | 0 mm | 0° | 0 mm | 15.0 | |
| 4 | None | Conservative | 3° varus | 0 mm | 0° | 0 mm | 12.6 | |
| III | 5 | Tibial tubercle fracture | Operative | 3° varus | 0 mm | 0° | 0 mm | 13.5 |
| 6 | Intercondylar eminence fracture | Conservative and operativeb | 8° varus | 0 mm | 0° | 0 mm | 12.9 | |
| Vc | 7 | None | Operative, 1 year post-injury | 8.5° varus | 6 mm shortening | 2° varus | 0 mmd | 11.2 |
aNo difference was observed in any patient in terms of axial and length deformity between the mid-term and final evaluation. b The operation was performed 1 year post-injury, after the varus injury had developed. c The patient did not receive treatment initially; he presented 1 year post-injury with an established deformity and he was operated on. d Measurement was performed 4 years post-operatively
Fig. 1a Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of a 5 year old boy with a Salter–Harris type II proximal physeal injury of the left tibia. b One year post-injury, with a valgus deformity of 4° compared to the normal side. c Three years post-injury; almost complete remodeling is observed. d Twenty-two years post-injury, without any angular deformity
Fig. 2a Anteroposterior radiographs of a 13 year old boy with an S-H type V proximal physeal injury of the right tibia, 12 months post-injury. b Anteroposterior radiographs of the same patient 12 months post-injury, showing a tibial length discrepancy of 6 mm. c The patient underwent a correctional osteotomy. d Five months after the correctional osteotomy, without angular deformity. e Two years after the correctional osteotomy. Malalignment of the tibial axis is present. f Four years after the correctional osteotomy. Despite the partial remodeling, a residual valgus deformity of 2° can be observed. g Four years after the correctional osteotomy. No tibial or fibular length discrepancy is apparent