Physeal Fractures of Distal Tibia

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenni Jalkanen ◽  
Juha-Jaakko Sinikumpu ◽  
Jani Puhakka ◽  
Topi Laaksonen ◽  
Yrjänä Nietosvaara ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1098612X2110058
Author(s):  
Carlos Rubinos ◽  
Richard L Meeson

Objectives The aim of this study was to describe the demography, aetiology, location and classification of physeal fractures in cats, and to describe their management and outcomes. Methods Clinical records and radiographs of cats referred for management of physeal fractures were retrospectively reviewed. Fractures of the proximal femoral physis were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to describe signalment, cause of injury, presence of concurrent injuries, fracture description, treatment modality, complications, follow-up, physeal closure, implant removal and outcome. Results Thirty-four cats with 36 fractures were included, of which 17 affected the distal femur, 11 the distal tibia and fibula, five the distal radius and ulna, two the proximal tibia and one the distal humerus. Salter–Harris classification was type I in 14, type II in 16, type III in two and type IV in four fractures. Thirty-four fractures were treated with primary fixation, and the most common method was crossed Kirschner wires (24/34 fractures). Complications were observed in 14 fractures, of which 12 were minor. At radiographic follow-up, physeal closure was reported in 23 fractures, of which 15 were considered premature. Implant removal was performed in three fractures. Outcome was good in 28, fair in four and poor in two fractures. Conclusions and relevance Fracture of the distal femoral physis was the most common physeal fracture seen. Cats presenting with physeal fractures may be skeletally immature or mature with delayed physeal closure. The rate of physeal closure after fracture repair was relatively high but without apparent impact. The frequency of implant removal was very low, indicating that despite having a physeal fracture repair, most cats did not require a second procedure to remove implants. Overall, internal fixation provided a good outcome in most fractures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (6) ◽  
pp. 610-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antti Stenroos ◽  
Jussi Kosola ◽  
Jani Puhakka ◽  
Topi Laaksonen ◽  
Matti Ahonen ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 733-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Barmada ◽  
Tracey Gaynor ◽  
Scott J. Mubarak

2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey T. Leary ◽  
Matthew Handling ◽  
Marcus Talerico ◽  
Lin Yong ◽  
J. Andrew Bowe

2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.J. Herman ◽  
G. Dean MacEwen

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Chintan Doshi ◽  
Simran Dua ◽  
Shital N. Parikh

A 14-year-old basketball player presented with a displaced distal tibia physeal fracture which is typically treated with closed reduction with or without internal fixation. However, repeated attempts at closed reduction failed to align the fracture fragments. At open reduction, tibialis posterior tendon interposition was identified within the fracture site and bowstringing of the tendon prevented closed reduction. A tendon interposition should be suspected when repeated closed reduction attempts fail to achieve satisfactory fracture reduction. The features of tendon interposition should be differentiated from the more common periosteal interposition for physeal fractures of the tibia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document