Cargando…

Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series

Supramalleolar osteotomy (SMO) in pediatric patients can be fixed in various ways. We analyzed the records of 77 pediatric patients (124 SMOs) aged ≤16 years. In 56 patients (96 SMOs), K-wires were used to stabilize SMOs (WF group), while 21 patients (28 SMOs) were treated with locking compression p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schlemmer, Thomas, Brunner, Reinald, Speth, Bernhard, Mayr, Johannes, Rutz, Erich
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7912499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33513700
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children8020086
_version_ 1783656591014232064
author Schlemmer, Thomas
Brunner, Reinald
Speth, Bernhard
Mayr, Johannes
Rutz, Erich
author_facet Schlemmer, Thomas
Brunner, Reinald
Speth, Bernhard
Mayr, Johannes
Rutz, Erich
author_sort Schlemmer, Thomas
collection PubMed
description Supramalleolar osteotomy (SMO) in pediatric patients can be fixed in various ways. We analyzed the records of 77 pediatric patients (124 SMOs) aged ≤16 years. In 56 patients (96 SMOs), K-wires were used to stabilize SMOs (WF group), while 21 patients (28 SMOs) were treated with locking compression plates (LCPs; PF group). We recorded time to radiographic consolidation, rate of complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and time to implant removal. Mean time to radiographic consolidation of SMOs was 7.2 weeks in the WF group and 11.1 weeks in the PF group. Complication rate in the WF group was 10.7%. LOS was similar in the two groups (7.0 days in the WF group vs. 7.3 days in the PF group). K-wire stabilization resulted in a shortened interval until consolidation of osteotomies, but children were required to use a cast. Stabilization of SMOs with LCPs facilitated early mobilization and functional rehabilitation with no need to apply a cast. In conclusion, both methods provided safe fixation of SMOs with a low rate of complications. K-wire stabilization combined with a cast achieves fast consolidation of SMOs. We recommend SMO stabilization with angular stable LCPs in patients with muscular weakness or spasticity in whom early mobilization and physiotherapy are necessary to prevent loss of muscle power, muscle function, and bone mass.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7912499
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79124992021-02-28 Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series Schlemmer, Thomas Brunner, Reinald Speth, Bernhard Mayr, Johannes Rutz, Erich Children (Basel) Article Supramalleolar osteotomy (SMO) in pediatric patients can be fixed in various ways. We analyzed the records of 77 pediatric patients (124 SMOs) aged ≤16 years. In 56 patients (96 SMOs), K-wires were used to stabilize SMOs (WF group), while 21 patients (28 SMOs) were treated with locking compression plates (LCPs; PF group). We recorded time to radiographic consolidation, rate of complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and time to implant removal. Mean time to radiographic consolidation of SMOs was 7.2 weeks in the WF group and 11.1 weeks in the PF group. Complication rate in the WF group was 10.7%. LOS was similar in the two groups (7.0 days in the WF group vs. 7.3 days in the PF group). K-wire stabilization resulted in a shortened interval until consolidation of osteotomies, but children were required to use a cast. Stabilization of SMOs with LCPs facilitated early mobilization and functional rehabilitation with no need to apply a cast. In conclusion, both methods provided safe fixation of SMOs with a low rate of complications. K-wire stabilization combined with a cast achieves fast consolidation of SMOs. We recommend SMO stabilization with angular stable LCPs in patients with muscular weakness or spasticity in whom early mobilization and physiotherapy are necessary to prevent loss of muscle power, muscle function, and bone mass. MDPI 2021-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7912499/ /pubmed/33513700 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children8020086 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Schlemmer, Thomas
Brunner, Reinald
Speth, Bernhard
Mayr, Johannes
Rutz, Erich
Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series
title Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series
title_full Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series
title_fullStr Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series
title_full_unstemmed Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series
title_short Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series
title_sort differences between two methods to stabilize supramalleolar osteotomies in children—a retrospective case series
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7912499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33513700
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children8020086
work_keys_str_mv AT schlemmerthomas differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries
AT brunnerreinald differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries
AT spethbernhard differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries
AT mayrjohannes differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries
AT rutzerich differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries