Cargando…

Growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the temporal and spatial sequence of events following temporal hemiepiphysiodesis in idiopathic knee varus/valgus. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicentre study on 372 physes in 206 patients. The average rate of correction (ROC) was calculated; univariate and multivariate a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Danino, B, Rödl, R., Herzenberg, J. E., Shabtai, L., Grill, F., Narayanan, U., Segev, E., Wientroub, S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31312272
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/1863-2548.13.190033
_version_ 1783430693152358400
author Danino, B
Rödl, R.
Herzenberg, J. E.
Shabtai, L.
Grill, F.
Narayanan, U.
Segev, E.
Wientroub, S.
author_facet Danino, B
Rödl, R.
Herzenberg, J. E.
Shabtai, L.
Grill, F.
Narayanan, U.
Segev, E.
Wientroub, S.
author_sort Danino, B
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the temporal and spatial sequence of events following temporal hemiepiphysiodesis in idiopathic knee varus/valgus. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicentre study on 372 physes in 206 patients. The average rate of correction (ROC) was calculated; univariate and multivariate analysis were performed. RESULTS: In all, 92% of the femoral physes were followed for more than one year/reached skeletal maturity. Of those, 93% were corrected to a mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) of 85° to 89°; 2% did not, while 5% were over-corrected. A total of 92% of the tibial physes were followed for more than one year/reached skeletal maturity. Of those, 92% were corrected to a mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) of 85° to 89°; 2% did not, while 6% were over-corrected. Factors significantly influencing success and ROC were age, direction and magnitude of deformity. Femoral ROC was significantly faster than tibial ROC: 0.85° versus 0.78°/month, respectively (p = 0.05). Femoral valgus ROC was significantly faster than varus ROC: 0.90° versus 0.77°/month, respectively (p = 0.04). A constant was derived to calculate the amount of correction. Significant correlation was found between calculated and actual mLDFA in valgus deformity during the first year (r = 0.58 to 0.87, p < 0.01). Calculated mLDFA of varus deformity did not correlate with actual mLDFA. Significant correlation was found when calculating mMPTA correction in all deformities. CONCLUSIONS: Femur corrects faster than tibia; valgus femoral deformities are corrected faster than varus. Valgus correction in the distal femur/proximal tibia as well as varus correction in the tibia in idiopathic patients is highly predictable. The constant derived is the first tool which enables predicting and monitoring amount of correction in hemiepiphysiodesis when correcting angular deformities around the knee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6598046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65980462019-07-16 Growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable? Danino, B Rödl, R. Herzenberg, J. E. Shabtai, L. Grill, F. Narayanan, U. Segev, E. Wientroub, S. J Child Orthop Original Clinical Article PURPOSE: To evaluate the temporal and spatial sequence of events following temporal hemiepiphysiodesis in idiopathic knee varus/valgus. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicentre study on 372 physes in 206 patients. The average rate of correction (ROC) was calculated; univariate and multivariate analysis were performed. RESULTS: In all, 92% of the femoral physes were followed for more than one year/reached skeletal maturity. Of those, 93% were corrected to a mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) of 85° to 89°; 2% did not, while 5% were over-corrected. A total of 92% of the tibial physes were followed for more than one year/reached skeletal maturity. Of those, 92% were corrected to a mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) of 85° to 89°; 2% did not, while 6% were over-corrected. Factors significantly influencing success and ROC were age, direction and magnitude of deformity. Femoral ROC was significantly faster than tibial ROC: 0.85° versus 0.78°/month, respectively (p = 0.05). Femoral valgus ROC was significantly faster than varus ROC: 0.90° versus 0.77°/month, respectively (p = 0.04). A constant was derived to calculate the amount of correction. Significant correlation was found between calculated and actual mLDFA in valgus deformity during the first year (r = 0.58 to 0.87, p < 0.01). Calculated mLDFA of varus deformity did not correlate with actual mLDFA. Significant correlation was found when calculating mMPTA correction in all deformities. CONCLUSIONS: Femur corrects faster than tibia; valgus femoral deformities are corrected faster than varus. Valgus correction in the distal femur/proximal tibia as well as varus correction in the tibia in idiopathic patients is highly predictable. The constant derived is the first tool which enables predicting and monitoring amount of correction in hemiepiphysiodesis when correcting angular deformities around the knee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2019-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6598046/ /pubmed/31312272 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/1863-2548.13.190033 Text en Copyright © 2019, The author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.
spellingShingle Original Clinical Article
Danino, B
Rödl, R.
Herzenberg, J. E.
Shabtai, L.
Grill, F.
Narayanan, U.
Segev, E.
Wientroub, S.
Growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable?
title Growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable?
title_full Growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable?
title_fullStr Growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable?
title_full_unstemmed Growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable?
title_short Growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable?
title_sort growth modulation in idiopathic angular knee deformities: is it predictable?
topic Original Clinical Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31312272
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/1863-2548.13.190033
work_keys_str_mv AT daninob growthmodulationinidiopathicangularkneedeformitiesisitpredictable
AT rodlr growthmodulationinidiopathicangularkneedeformitiesisitpredictable
AT herzenbergje growthmodulationinidiopathicangularkneedeformitiesisitpredictable
AT shabtail growthmodulationinidiopathicangularkneedeformitiesisitpredictable
AT grillf growthmodulationinidiopathicangularkneedeformitiesisitpredictable
AT narayananu growthmodulationinidiopathicangularkneedeformitiesisitpredictable
AT segeve growthmodulationinidiopathicangularkneedeformitiesisitpredictable
AT wientroubs growthmodulationinidiopathicangularkneedeformitiesisitpredictable