Cargando…

Physeal-Specific MRI Analysis of Growth Plate Disturbance Following All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does a Physeal-Sparing Technique Offer any Advantage?

OBJECTIVES: The decision to perform anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in skeletally immature patients carries a risk of growth disturbance due to iatrogenic physeal injury. Multiple physeal-sparing techniques have been described but none, to our knowledge combine the benefits of an ana...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nawabi, Danyal H., Jones, Kristofer J., Lurie, Brett, Potter, Hollis G., Green, Daniel W., Cordasco, Frank A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4588944/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967113S00025
_version_ 1782392714094968832
author Nawabi, Danyal H.
Jones, Kristofer J.
Lurie, Brett
Potter, Hollis G.
Green, Daniel W.
Cordasco, Frank A.
author_facet Nawabi, Danyal H.
Jones, Kristofer J.
Lurie, Brett
Potter, Hollis G.
Green, Daniel W.
Cordasco, Frank A.
author_sort Nawabi, Danyal H.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The decision to perform anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in skeletally immature patients carries a risk of growth disturbance due to iatrogenic physeal injury. Multiple physeal-sparing techniques have been described but none, to our knowledge combine the benefits of an anatomic reconstruction and socket fixation, without violation of either the femoral or tibial physis at any stage of the procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence and calculate the area of post-operative physeal disturbances, using a physeal-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence*, between all-epiphyseal (AE) and partial transphyseal (PTP) ACL reconstructions in a cohort of skeletally-immature patients. METHODS: Twenty-one skeletally immature patients with a mean chronologic age of 12.7 years (range 10 to 16) undergoing all-inside ACL reconstruction were prospectively followed. Fourteen patients had an all-epiphyseal (AE) ACL reconstruction and 7 patients had a partial transphyseal (PTP) ACL reconstruction, which spared the femoral physis but crossed the tibial physis. Hamstring autograft was used in all cases. At a mean of 11.6 months follow-up, all patients were assessed for focal physeal disturbance and graft survival using a three-dimensional (3D) fat suppressed spoiled gradient-recalled echo (SPGR) MRI sequence. Angular deformity and leg length discrepancy were evaluated on full-length standing radiographs. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm knee score were also documented. RESULTS: The tibial physis was violated in 13/14 patients in the AE group and all patients in the PTP group. The mean area of post-operative tibial physeal disturbance (± SD) was 42.4 ± 38.6 mm(2) (mean 1.7% of total physeal area) in the AE group compared to 216.7 ± 129.1 mm(2) (mean 7.3% of total physeal area) in the PTP group (p = 0.003). The femoral physis was violated in one case in both groups resulting in a mean physeal disturbance of 1.5% of the total distal femoral physeal area. No cases of fracture, articular surface violation or avascular necrosis were noted on MRI in either group. Short-term graft survival was 100% amongst the entire cohort. There were no cases of angular deformity in either group with a mean side-side difference in the lateral distal femoral angle of 1.11° ± 1.02° in the AE group and 0.72° ± 0.65° in the PTP group (p = 0.23). No significant leg-length discrepancies were measured in either group. The mean IKDC and Lysholm scores (± SD) were 93.3 ± 5.9 and 97.8 ± 3.8 respectively in the AE group and 87.7 ± 3.5 and 96 ± 5.2 respectively in the PTP group. CONCLUSION: All-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction caused significantly less focal physeal disturbance than PTP ACL reconstruction, as determined by a 3D physeal-sensitive MRI sequence. Neither technique however resulted in angular deformity or leg-length discrepancy at early follow-up. Both all-inside ACL reconstruction techniques used in this study are safe and effective at early follow-up in skeletally immature patients. Further longitudinal study of this cohort is required to determine any potential advantages of a purely physeal-sparing technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4588944
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45889442015-11-03 Physeal-Specific MRI Analysis of Growth Plate Disturbance Following All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does a Physeal-Sparing Technique Offer any Advantage? Nawabi, Danyal H. Jones, Kristofer J. Lurie, Brett Potter, Hollis G. Green, Daniel W. Cordasco, Frank A. Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVES: The decision to perform anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in skeletally immature patients carries a risk of growth disturbance due to iatrogenic physeal injury. Multiple physeal-sparing techniques have been described but none, to our knowledge combine the benefits of an anatomic reconstruction and socket fixation, without violation of either the femoral or tibial physis at any stage of the procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence and calculate the area of post-operative physeal disturbances, using a physeal-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence*, between all-epiphyseal (AE) and partial transphyseal (PTP) ACL reconstructions in a cohort of skeletally-immature patients. METHODS: Twenty-one skeletally immature patients with a mean chronologic age of 12.7 years (range 10 to 16) undergoing all-inside ACL reconstruction were prospectively followed. Fourteen patients had an all-epiphyseal (AE) ACL reconstruction and 7 patients had a partial transphyseal (PTP) ACL reconstruction, which spared the femoral physis but crossed the tibial physis. Hamstring autograft was used in all cases. At a mean of 11.6 months follow-up, all patients were assessed for focal physeal disturbance and graft survival using a three-dimensional (3D) fat suppressed spoiled gradient-recalled echo (SPGR) MRI sequence. Angular deformity and leg length discrepancy were evaluated on full-length standing radiographs. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm knee score were also documented. RESULTS: The tibial physis was violated in 13/14 patients in the AE group and all patients in the PTP group. The mean area of post-operative tibial physeal disturbance (± SD) was 42.4 ± 38.6 mm(2) (mean 1.7% of total physeal area) in the AE group compared to 216.7 ± 129.1 mm(2) (mean 7.3% of total physeal area) in the PTP group (p = 0.003). The femoral physis was violated in one case in both groups resulting in a mean physeal disturbance of 1.5% of the total distal femoral physeal area. No cases of fracture, articular surface violation or avascular necrosis were noted on MRI in either group. Short-term graft survival was 100% amongst the entire cohort. There were no cases of angular deformity in either group with a mean side-side difference in the lateral distal femoral angle of 1.11° ± 1.02° in the AE group and 0.72° ± 0.65° in the PTP group (p = 0.23). No significant leg-length discrepancies were measured in either group. The mean IKDC and Lysholm scores (± SD) were 93.3 ± 5.9 and 97.8 ± 3.8 respectively in the AE group and 87.7 ± 3.5 and 96 ± 5.2 respectively in the PTP group. CONCLUSION: All-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction caused significantly less focal physeal disturbance than PTP ACL reconstruction, as determined by a 3D physeal-sensitive MRI sequence. Neither technique however resulted in angular deformity or leg-length discrepancy at early follow-up. Both all-inside ACL reconstruction techniques used in this study are safe and effective at early follow-up in skeletally immature patients. Further longitudinal study of this cohort is required to determine any potential advantages of a purely physeal-sparing technique. SAGE Publications 2013-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4588944/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967113S00025 Text en © The Author(s) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
spellingShingle Article
Nawabi, Danyal H.
Jones, Kristofer J.
Lurie, Brett
Potter, Hollis G.
Green, Daniel W.
Cordasco, Frank A.
Physeal-Specific MRI Analysis of Growth Plate Disturbance Following All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does a Physeal-Sparing Technique Offer any Advantage?
title Physeal-Specific MRI Analysis of Growth Plate Disturbance Following All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does a Physeal-Sparing Technique Offer any Advantage?
title_full Physeal-Specific MRI Analysis of Growth Plate Disturbance Following All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does a Physeal-Sparing Technique Offer any Advantage?
title_fullStr Physeal-Specific MRI Analysis of Growth Plate Disturbance Following All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does a Physeal-Sparing Technique Offer any Advantage?
title_full_unstemmed Physeal-Specific MRI Analysis of Growth Plate Disturbance Following All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does a Physeal-Sparing Technique Offer any Advantage?
title_short Physeal-Specific MRI Analysis of Growth Plate Disturbance Following All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does a Physeal-Sparing Technique Offer any Advantage?
title_sort physeal-specific mri analysis of growth plate disturbance following all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature patients: does a physeal-sparing technique offer any advantage?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4588944/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967113S00025
work_keys_str_mv AT nawabidanyalh physealspecificmrianalysisofgrowthplatedisturbancefollowingallinsideanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesaphysealsparingtechniqueofferanyadvantage
AT joneskristoferj physealspecificmrianalysisofgrowthplatedisturbancefollowingallinsideanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesaphysealsparingtechniqueofferanyadvantage
AT luriebrett physealspecificmrianalysisofgrowthplatedisturbancefollowingallinsideanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesaphysealsparingtechniqueofferanyadvantage
AT potterhollisg physealspecificmrianalysisofgrowthplatedisturbancefollowingallinsideanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesaphysealsparingtechniqueofferanyadvantage
AT greendanielw physealspecificmrianalysisofgrowthplatedisturbancefollowingallinsideanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesaphysealsparingtechniqueofferanyadvantage
AT cordascofranka physealspecificmrianalysisofgrowthplatedisturbancefollowingallinsideanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesaphysealsparingtechniqueofferanyadvantage