Epiphysiodesis for the treatment of tall stature and leg length discrepancy

SummaryPainful orthopedic conditions associated with extreme tall stature and leg length discrepancy (LLD) include back pain and adopting bad posture. After failure of conservative treatment options, blocking of the growth plates (epiphysiodesis) around the knee emerged as gold standard in patients with tall stature and LLD in the growing skeleton. Surgical planning includes growth prediction and evaluation of bone age. Since growth prediction is associated with a certain potential error, adequate planning and timing of epiphysiodesis are the key for success of the treatment. LLD corrections up to 5 cm can be achieved, and predicted extreme tall stature can be limited. Percutaneous epiphysiodesis techniques are minimally invasive, safe and efficient methods with low complication rates. In general, a multidisciplinary approach should be pursued when treating children and adolescents with tall stature.

Download Full-text

A comparison of screw versus drill and curettage epiphysiodesis to correct leg-length discrepancy

Journal of Children s Orthopaedics ◽

10.1302/1863-2548.12.180030 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 12 (5) ◽

pp. 509-514 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

M. Troy ◽

B. Shore ◽

P. Miller ◽

S. Mahan ◽

D. Hedequist ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Operative Time ◽

Surgical Techniques ◽

Leg Length Discrepancy ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Leg Length ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

Length Discrepancy ◽

Baseline Activity ◽

Significant Difference

Purpose To compare two common surgical techniques of epiphysiodesis: drill/curettage epiphysiodesis (PDED) versus cross screw epiphysiodesis (PETS). The hypothesis is that the two techniques have similar efficacy but demonstrate differences in length of hospital stay (LOS), time to return to activity and complication rates. Methods A retrospective review of growing children and adolescents less than 18 years old who required an epiphysiodesis with leg-length discrepancy (LLD) of 2 cm to 6 cm with minimum two years of follow-up was conducted. Characteristics including age at surgery, gender, epiphysiodesis location, side, operative time, LOS and hardware removal were compared across treatment groups. LLD, expected growth remaining (EGR) and bone age were determined preoperatively and at most-recent visit. The correction ratio (change in EGR) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess if correction in leg length was achieved. Results A total of 115 patients underwent epiphysiodesis in the femur (53%), tibia (24%) or a combination (24%). The cohort was 47% male, with a mean age of 12.6 years (7.7 to 17.7) at surgery. Median follow-up was 3.7 years (2.0 to 12.7). In all, 23 patients underwent PETS and 92 patients had PDED. Both treatment groups achieved expected LLD correction. There was no significant difference in median operative time, complication rates or LOS. PETS patients returned to activity at a mean 1.4 months (interquartile range (IQR) 0.7 to 2.1) while PDED patients returned at a mean 2.4 months (IQR 1.7 to 3) (p < 0.001). Conclusion Effectiveness in achieving expected correction, LOS and operative time are similar between screw and drill/curettage epiphysiodesis. Patients undergoing PETS demonstrated a faster return to baseline activity than patients with PDED. Level of Evidence: III

Download Full-text