header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

PHYSEAL BAR RESECTION FOR PARTIAL GROWTH PLATE ARREST.



Abstract

Physeal bar resection for partial growth plate arrest was first described by Langenskjold in 1967. The initial enthusiasm by Peterson (1989) who found that 83% of patients resumed physeal growth was tempered by Birch (1992) who only had 33% success. Poor results were due to failure to resume growth or premature growth arrest.

We retrospectively reviewed 21 physeal bar resections performed in 19 children from 1987 to 2003. The average age at surgery was 8.2 years (range 3–12 years). The aetiology of the physeal arrest was : growth plate fracture (8), meningococcal septicaemia (5), osteitis (3; 2 neonatal), dysplasia (3), gunshot (1) and idiopathic (1). The commonest site was the distal femur (12; 5 due to growth plate fracture), followed by the proximal tibia (5; 3 due to meningococcal septicaemia), and the distal tibia (4; 2 due to growth plate fractures). Assessment of the size and location of the bar was with biplanar tomography in 7, MRI in 5 and both in 7. We found equal accuracy with both modalities, but currently prefer MRI. The bar was plotted on an anterior-posterior and lateral map of the growth plate. The average size of the bar was 25% (range 15 to 50%) of the area of the growth plate. Only 3 bars were larger than 30%. Fifteen of the bars were peripheral, 5 linear and 1 central.

Results were classified poor if there was no resumption of growth or if premature growth plate arrest occurred, good if there was resumption of growth which continued to maturity or to follow-up, and excellent if the growth exceeded the expected growth. There were 5 (24%) poor results; all failed to resume growth. Three bars exceeded 30% and 2 were due to meningococcal septicaemia. The remaining 16 bars were followed up for a range of 2 to 12 years; 10 to maturity. Four (19%) had an excellent and 12 (57%) had a good result.

The authors conclude that physeal bar resection is a worthwhile procedure if the size of the bar is equal to or less than 30% of the area of the growth plate. In growth arrest due to meningococcal septicaemia we only had a 60% success rate.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Léana Fourie, CEO SAOA, PO Box 12918, Brandhof 9324 South Africa.