J Moreta1, J C Abril, C Miranda. 1. Servicio de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología, Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, España. Electronic address: chusmoreta2@hotmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physeal bridge resection and insertion of interposition material has had mixed success rates in the literature. Using the arthroscopic approach, some authors have reported good results in their patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the treatment of post-traumatic central physeal bridges with arthroscopically assisted resection and fat interposition. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 5 patients (6 procedures), who developed a physeal bridge after a traumatic injury. A CT or MRI scan was performed preoperatively in all patients to assess the size of the physeal bridge. Inclusion criteria were patients with documented existing or developing deformities, a physeal bridge <50% of the physeal area, and with at least 2 years of growth remaining. Clinical outcomes were classified according to Marsch and Polzhofer criteria (excellent, good or poor). RESULTS: Excellent results were obtained in two patients, good in one, and the other two cases were rated as poor. In patients with a poor outcome, high energy trauma mechanisms were identified in both cases. Moreover, incorrect initial treatment or delayed physeal bridge resection was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The arthroscopically assisted technique provides best visualization with minimal morbidity. Although our results are not as good as previous studies, it cannot be considered that the technique itself is the cause of the failure, as several risk factors associated to bad prognosis of these injuries were found.
INTRODUCTION: Physeal bridge resection and insertion of interposition material has had mixed success rates in the literature. Using the arthroscopic approach, some authors have reported good results in their patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the treatment of post-traumatic central physeal bridges with arthroscopically assisted resection and fat interposition. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 5 patients (6 procedures), who developed a physeal bridge after a traumatic injury. A CT or MRI scan was performed preoperatively in all patients to assess the size of the physeal bridge. Inclusion criteria were patients with documented existing or developing deformities, a physeal bridge <50% of the physeal area, and with at least 2 years of growth remaining. Clinical outcomes were classified according to Marsch and Polzhofer criteria (excellent, good or poor). RESULTS: Excellent results were obtained in two patients, good in one, and the other two cases were rated as poor. In patients with a poor outcome, high energy trauma mechanisms were identified in both cases. Moreover, incorrect initial treatment or delayed physeal bridge resection was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The arthroscopically assisted technique provides best visualization with minimal morbidity. Although our results are not as good as previous studies, it cannot be considered that the technique itself is the cause of the failure, as several risk factors associated to bad prognosis of these injuries were found.
Authors: Sherif Dabash; Gautham Prabhakar; Eric Potter; Ahmed M Thabet; Amr Abdelgawad; Stephen Heinrich Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2018-01-06