| Literature DB >> 27207305 |
J A van der Sluijs1, J L Bron2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Malunions of fractures in children have a natural tendency to remodel. However, quantitative data of this well-known process are scarce. The extent of the correction depends inter alia on the type of bone and the location of the deformity and growth remaining. The aim of this study was to quantify the remodeling process of distal radius malunions in children to allow better future prediction.Entities:
Keywords: Distal radius fractures; Malunion; Prediction; Remodeling
Year: 2016 PMID: 27207305 PMCID: PMC4909656 DOI: 10.1007/s11832-016-0741-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Child Orthop ISSN: 1863-2521 Impact factor: 1.548
Summary of the data from 62 patients
| Gandhi cohort (A), | Jeroense cohort (B), | Difference | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 7.7 | 9.1 | 1.3 years | 0.043 |
| Remodeling time (months) | 35 | 9 | 25 months | 0.000 |
| Malunion angulation ( | 26° | 24° | 2.5° | 0.1 |
| Angulation at FU | 5° | 8° | 3.5° | 0.02 |
Comparison of the two subgroups
Models of observed remodeling (A T) and initial malunion angle (A 0) and RT (n = 63 malunions)
| Model | Dependent variable | Independent variables | Model | 95 % CI of coefficient of RT |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model of Friberg | AT | RT, |
| 0.1–0.16 | 0.1 |
| Modified model | AT | RT, |
| 0.024–0.044 | 0.47 |
A T remodeling angle, RT remodeling time, A 0 initial malunion angulation
Differences between the observed and predicted remodeling of malunions angulations (n = 63)
| Observed remodeling (mean) | Predicted remodeling (mean) | Difference ( | 95 % CI of difference | Number of predictions <5° | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Friberg model | 6.7° | 5.6° | 1.1° ( | −0.2 to 2.5 | 41/63 |
| Modified model | 6.7° | 6.6° | 0.07° ( | −0.9 to 1.1 | 48/63 |
Fig. 1Observed and predicted angulation at follow-up (A T) of distal radius malunions. On the horizontal axis is the remodeling time, and on the vertical axis, the observed remodeling angulations (°) are shown next to the predicted angulation (filled circles) based on the model
Estimates of remodeling time of distal radius malunions based on the modified model with fast coefficient C and on data from the literature
| Malunion angulation | Expected remodeling time, mean (range), months | Based on |
|---|---|---|
| 15° | 12 (2.5–13) | Do study |
| 30° | 36 (30–48) | Based on modified model using fast coefficient. Confirmed by Johari and Roth study |
| 40° | 40–50 | Based on modified model using fast coefficient. Confirmed by Gandhi study |
Patient data overview
| Patients | Case | Age (years) | Sex | Malunion angulation (°) | FU angulation (°) | RT (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort A | 1 | 9 | M | 32 | 1 | 60 |
| 2 | 11 | F | 30 | 0 | 60 | |
| 3 | 4 | F | 15 | 0 | 60 | |
| 4 | 7 | M | 35 | 0 | 60 | |
| 5 | 2 | M | 25 | 0 | 60 | |
| 6 | 8 | M | 30 | 0 | 60 | |
| 7 | 9 | M | 15 | 0 | 48 | |
| 8 | 5 | M | 37 | 3 | 48 | |
| 9 | 4 | F | 20 | 4 | 48 | |
| 10 | 9 | M | 33 | 0 | 48 | |
| 11 | 11 | M | 24 | 10 | 39 | |
| 12 | 7 | M | 21 | 4 | 36 | |
| 13 | 5 | M | 24 | 4 | 39 | |
| 14 | 8 | M | 28 | 9 | 36 | |
| 15 | 9 | M | 25 | 7 | 36 | |
| 16 | 8 | M | 25 | 7 | 33 | |
| 17 | 4 | M | 34 | 6 | 33 | |
| 18 | 12 | M | 39 | 12 | 27 | |
| 19 | 8 | M | 32 | 10 | 27 | |
| 20 | 10 | F | 20 | 4 | 27 | |
| 21 | 8 | M | 16 | 0 | 27 | |
| 22 | 8 | M | 25 | 0 | 24 | |
| 23 | 10 | M | 33 | 13 | 24 | |
| 24 | 9 | F | 35 | 10 | 24 | |
| 25 | 9 | M | 14 | 10 | 21 | |
| 26 | 5 | F | 38 | 12 | 18 | |
| 27 | 7 | M | 33 | 13 | 12 | |
| 28 | 9 | M | 28 | 14 | 12 | |
| 29 | 7 | M | 20 | 0 | 12 | |
| 30 | 7 | M | 13 | 0 | 12 | |
| 31 | 11 | M | 20 | 0 | 12 | |
| Cohort B | 32 | 5.5 | F | 18 | 10 | 10 |
| 33 | 7 | F | 20 | 4 | 16 | |
| 34 | 6.5 | M | 20 | –1.5 | 18 | |
| 35 | 9 | F | 15 | 9 | 4 | |
| 36 | 7 | M | 18 | 7 | 6.5 | |
| 37 | 5.5 | M | 29 | 11 | 10 | |
| 38 | 3 | F | 19 | 10 | 4 | |
| 39 | 11 | F | 31 | 16 | 6 | |
| 40 | 10.5 | M | 28 | 21 | 3 | |
| 41 | 8 | F | 25 | 7 | 6 | |
| 42 | 8.5 | M | 26 | 15 | 3 | |
| 43 | 8 | M | 30 | 13 | 4.5 | |
| 44a | 8 | F | 20 | 5 | 3.5 | |
| 44b | “ | F | 17 | 0 | 3 | |
| 45 | 8 | M | 29 | 15 | 2.5 | |
| 46 | 4 | F | 49 | 19 | 5 | |
| 47 | 10 | F | 18 | 17 | 5 | |
| 48 | 10 | F | 16 | 3 | 29 | |
| 49 | 10 | F | 17 | 7 | 12 | |
| 50 | 10 | F | 41 | 4 | 22 | |
| 51 | 10.5 | F | 20 | 13 | 3 | |
| 52 | 9.5 | M | 23 | 14 | 3.5 | |
| 53 | 9 | F | 33 | 13 | 5 | |
| 54 | 11 | M | 31 | 4 | 3.5 | |
| 55 | 11 | F | 16 | 2 | 27 | |
| 56 | 7.5 | F | 16 | 7 | 16 | |
| 57 | 12.5 | M | 21 | 0 | 23 | |
| 58 | 12.5 | M | 20 | 13 | 8 | |
| 59 | 14 | M | 15 | 10 | 4.5 | |
| 60 | 11 | M | 28 | –2 | 17 | |
| 61 | 11.5 | F | 21 | 1 | 11 | |
| 62 | 14.5 | M | 16 | 8 | 2.5 |
FU follow-up, RT remodeling time