scholarly journals Predictor index of functional limb length discrepancy

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 230949902094165
Author(s):  
Vivek Ajit Singh ◽  
Sasidaran Ramalingam ◽  
Amber Haseeb ◽  
Nor Faissal Bin Yasin

Introduction: Limb length discrepancy (LLD) of lower extremities is underdiagnosed due to compensatory mechanisms during locomotion. The natural course of compensation leads to biomechanical alteration in human musculoskeletal system leading to adverse effects. General consensus accepts LLD more than 2 cm as significant to cause biomechanical alteration. No studies were conducted correlating height and lower extremities true length (TL) to signify LLD. Examining significant LLD in relation to height and TL using dynamic gait analysis with primary focus on kinematics and secondary focus on kinetics would provide an objective evaluation method. Methodology: Forty participants with no evidence of LLD were recruited. Height and TL were measured. Reflective markers were attached at specific points in lower extremity and subjects walked in gait lab at a self-selected normal walking pace with artificial LLDs of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 cm simulated using shoe raise. Accommodation period of 30 min was given. Infrared cameras were used to capture the motion. Primary kinematic (knee flexion and pelvic obliquity (PO)) and secondary kinetic (ground reaction force (GRF)) were measured at right heel strike and left heel strike. Functional adaptation was analyzed and the postulated predictor indices (PIs) were used as a screening tool using height, LLD, and TL to notify significance. Results: There was a significant knee flexion component seen in height category of less than 170 cm. There was significant difference between LLD 3 cm and 4 cm. No significant changes were seen in PO and GRF. PIs of LLD/height and LLD/TL were analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curve. LLD/height as a PI with value of 1.75 was determined with specificity of 80% and sensitivity of 76%. Conclusion: A height of less than 170 cm has significant changes in relation to LLD. PI using LLD/height appears to be a promising tool to identify patients at risk.

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0008
Author(s):  
Nirav K. Pandya ◽  
Christina Allen ◽  
Emily Monroe ◽  
Caitlin Chambers

BACKGROUND Partial transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a technique utilized in the skeletally immature population. The femoral tunnel is placed in the distal femoral epiphysis whereas the tibial tunnel is placed in a transphyseal fashion medial to the tibial tubercle. This technique was introduced in an effort to lessen insult to the distal femoral physis of skeletally immature adolescents while also avoiding the technical difficulty of placing an intra-epiphyseal tunnel in the proximal tibia which at times can be non-anatomic. There is limited literature examining this technique. In this study we analyzed the concurrent surgical procedures, re-operation and graft failure rates, and radiographic outcomes in adolescents undergoing partial transphyseal ACL reconstruction. METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing partial transphyseal ACL reconstruction by the two senior authors (NP and CA) were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients with symptomatic ACL rupture with open distal femoral physes and at least two years of growth remaining by chronologic and physiologic age as determined by growth and pubertal history. All patients received hamstring autograft. Femoral tunnels were drilled in an intra-epiphyseal location utilizing small angle guides under fluoroscopic guidance. Transphyseal tibial tunnels were drilled in standard fashion with a tip-aiming guide while minimizing thermal damage from slow reaming, avoiding horizontal tunnel placement, and using extraphyseal graft fixation to lessen insult to the proximal tibial physis. Radiographic outcomes including bilateral limb length (LL) and alignment as judged by mechanical axis deviation (MAD), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were measured on long standing anterior-to-posterior (AP) view radiographs. Growth disturbance was defined as = 1 cm leg length discrepancy, = 1 cm difference in MAD, or 5-degree difference in mLDFA or MPTA as compared to the non-operative side and MAD/mLDFA/MPTA outside of established range of normal values. Clinical outcomes including graft failure and need for repeat operation were recorded at each follow-up visit. Operative extremity alignment measurements were compared to non-operative extremity measurements utilizing a paired students t-test. RESULTS Twenty-four patients with average follow up of 31.5 ± 17.1 months met inclusion criteria for this study. Five female and 19 male patients were enrolled consisting of 13 left and 11 right knees. Average age at time of surgery was 12.3 ± 0.9 years (10.1-13.8 years). The average ACL graft size was 7.8 mm ± 0.5 mm (6-9 mm). Ten patients (41.7%) had concurrent meniscal surgery, with seven (29.2%) undergoing partial lateral meniscectomy, two (8.3%) lateral meniscus repairs, and one patient (4.2%) with medial and lateral meniscal repairs. Six patients (25.0%) required re-operation at an average of 29.2 ± 17.3 months (1.5-49.5 months) for removal of hardware (n=3), revision ACL reconstruction (n=2), and meniscus surgery (n=1). Two patients had ACL graft failure (8.3%) during sporting activity and underwent revision ACL reconstruction at 19.7 months and 49.5 months post-operatively. There were no contralateral ACL tears. As shown in Table 1, comparison of the mean alignment and limb length measurements between all patients’ operative to nonoperative extremity revealed no significant difference in femur length, MAD, MLDFA, or MPTA. There was a small but statistically significant difference in operative versus non-operative tibia length (390.2 cm versus 392.4 cm, p=0.0004) and limb length (880.9 cm versus 884.0 cm, p=0.02). In analyzing individual patients’ limb length or alignment differences, five patients (20.8%) were identified with a growth disturbance. One patient had isolated shortening of the operative extremity, two with significant lateral deviation of the MAD, and two with both shortening and lateral MAD translation. No patients had significant side-to-side difference in mLDFA or MPTA. Femoral shortening accounted for the majority of the limb length discrepancy in two of the three patients with significant limb length discrepancy. All patients returned to sport. CONCLUSIONS / SIGNIFICANCE Partial transphyseal ACL reconstruction has a 25.0% re-operation rate, most often for hardware removal, and an 8.3% graft failure rate. Overall, approximately 20% of patients undergoing partial transphyseal ACL reconstruction had a growth disturbance but none required surgical intervention for these disturbances. While the partial transphyseal technique spares the distal femoral physis, femur-dominant limb length discrepancy can still occur. Drilling and graft placement across the tibial physis appears to be safe. Further studies are needed to directly compare the radiographic, functional, and clinical outcomes of partial transphyseal ACL reconstruction with transphyseal and all-epiphyseal techniques in the pediatric population. [Table: see text]


1993 ◽  
Vol 83 (11) ◽  
pp. 625-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
RL Blake ◽  
HJ Ferguson

Ten subjects with a known limb length discrepancy were filmed with the two-dimensional Motion Analysis Foot Trak System; eight were filmed running and walking and two were filmed walking only. A control group of ten subjects with no measured limb length discrepancy was filmed in the same manner (eight walking and running and two walking only). The calcaneus-to-vertical angle was recorded for the entire stance gait cycle (heel contact to toe-off). Analysis of the data between the short and long side showed a significant difference in calcaneal position between the two sides at midstance, with the longer side being more everted by 3 degrees or greater than the short side in most cases. There was no significant difference in the calcaneus-to-vertical angle at heel contact between the long and short side. There was no significant difference between the calcaneus-to-vertical angles of the right and left sides of the ten control subjects, either walking or running.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 4104
Author(s):  
Lukas Zak ◽  
Thomas Manfred Tiefenboeck ◽  
Gerald Eliot Wozasek

Limb length discrepancy (LLD) is a common problem after joint-preserving hip surgeries, hip dysplasia, and hip deformities. Limping, pain, sciatica, paresthesia, and hip instability are common clinical findings and may necessitate limb-lengthening procedures. The study included five patients (two female and three male, mean age of 28 years (20–49; SD: 12)) with symptomatic limb length discrepancy greater than 2.5 cm (mean: 3.6 cm) after total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip dysplasia, or post-traumatic hip surgery. They underwent either ipsi- or contralateral intramedullary limb-lengthening surgeries using the PRECICE™ telescopic nail. All patients achieved complete bone healing and correction of the pelvic obliquity after intramedullary lengthening. None of the patients had a loss of proximal or distal joint motion. The mean distraction-consolidation time (DCT) was 3.8 months, the distraction index (DI) 0.7 mm/day, the lengthening index (LI) 1.8 months/cm, the consolidation index (CI) 49.2 days/cm, the healing index (HI) 1.1 months/cm, and the modified healing index (HI*) 34 days/cm. Intramedullary limb lengthening after LLD in cases of hip dysplasia, hip deformity, and various kinds of hip surgery is a useful and safe procedure in young patients to achieve equal limb length. No functional impairment of the preceded hip surgery was seen.


1987 ◽  
Vol 69 (5) ◽  
pp. 699-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
W W Huurman ◽  
F S Jacobsen ◽  
J C Anderson ◽  
W K Chu

2000 ◽  
Vol 82 (10) ◽  
pp. 1432-1446 ◽  
Author(s):  
DROR PALEY ◽  
ANIL BHAVE ◽  
JOHN E. HERZENBERG ◽  
J. RICHARD BOWEN

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (10) ◽  
pp. 2243-2251 ◽  
Author(s):  
SANJEEV SABHARWAL ◽  
CAIXIA ZHAO ◽  
JOHN J. MCKEON ◽  
EMILY MCCLEMENS ◽  
MICHELE EDGAR ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document