Literature DB >> 30020127

Timing of Epiphysiodesis to Correct Leg-Length Discrepancy: A Comparison of Prediction Methods.

Marina R Makarov1, Taylor J Jackson2, Connor M Smith2, Chan-Hee Jo1, John G Birch1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of different methods used to predict ultimate leg lengths and residual leg-length discrepancy in a group of patients treated with epiphysiodesis at our institution.
METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with adequate preoperative radiographs, no postoperative complications, and follow-up to skeletal maturity composed the study group. We compared the predicted lengths of both legs and residual leg-length discrepancy at maturity with actual outcomes using the White-Menelaus, Anderson-Green, Moseley, and multiplier methods.
RESULTS: Skeletal age varied >1 year from chronological age in 61 (26%) of 231 observations, including 19 patients (25%) whose average skeletal age from 3 determinations differed by >1 year from chronological age. The prediction accuracy of each method was improved by using skeletal, rather than chronological, age. Error in prediction of the length of the short leg varied from a mean (and standard deviation) of 1.8 ± 1.2 cm for the straight-line graph to 2.5 ± 2.0 cm for the multiplier method. Prediction error for the long leg (after epiphysiodesis) varied from a mean of 1.2 ± 1.1 cm for the straight-line graph to 1.7 ± 1.5 cm for the multiplier method. Leg-length-discrepancy prediction error ranged from a mean of 0.7 ± 0.6 cm for the White-Menelaus method incorporating a growth inhibition factor to 1.1 ± 0.9 cm for the multiplier method. The multiplier method was the least accurate of all. All differences were significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Determination of skeletal age is clinically relevant in patients being considered for epiphysiodesis to manage leg-length inequality. The multiplier method was the least accurate of the prediction methods in this patient population, which may have implications in calculating the appropriate timing of epiphysiodesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30020127     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01380

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


  6 in total

1.  Modernization of bone age assessment: comparing the accuracy and reliability of an artificial intelligence algorithm and shorthand bone age to Greulich and Pyle.

Authors:  Mina Gerges; Hayley Eng; Harpreet Chhina; Anthony Cooper
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  The More the Merrier: Integrating Multiple Models of Skeletal Maturity Improves the Accuracy of Growth Prediction.

Authors:  Alana M Munger; Kristin E Yu; Don T Li; Ryan J Furdock; Melanie E Boeyer; Dana L Duren; David R Weber; Daniel R Cooperman
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Growth Deceleration for Limb Length Discrepancy: Tension Band Plates Followed to Maturity.

Authors:  Peter Stevens; Matias Desperes; Philip K McClure; Angela Presson; Jennifer Herrick
Journal:  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr       Date:  2022 Jan-Apr

4.  Long-term results and comparison of the Green-Anderson and multiplier growth prediction methods after permanent epiphysiodesis using Canale's technique.

Authors:  K Burger; S Farr; J Hahne; C Radler; R Ganger
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 1.548

5.  Comparison of Moseley and Rotterdam straight-line graphs in predicting leg lengths and leg-length discrepancy at maturity.

Authors:  S Shahrestani; M R Makarov; C-H Jo; J G Birch
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 1.548

6.  Temporary hemiepiphysiodesis using an eight-plate implant for coronal angular deformity around the knee in children aged less than 10 years: efficacy, complications, occurrence of rebound and risk factors.

Authors:  Zhen-Zhen Dai; Zhen-Peng Liang; Hao Li; Jing Ding; Zhen-Kai Wu; Zi-Ming Zhang; Hai Li
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.