Distal tibial osteotomy compared to proximal osteotomy for limb lengthening in children.

AIMS: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess and investigate the safety and efficacy of using a distal tibial osteotomy compared to proximal osteotomy for limb lengthening in children. METHODS: In this study, there were 59 consecutive tibial lengthening and deformity corrections in 57 children using a circular frame. All were performed or supervised by the senior author between January 2013 and June 2019. A total of 25 who underwent a distal tibial osteotomy were analyzed and compared to a group of 34 who had a standard proximal tibial osteotomy. For each patient, the primary diagnosis, time in frame, complications, and lengthening achieved were recorded. From these data, the frame index was calculated (days/cm) and analyzed. RESULTS: All patients ended their treatment with successful lengthening and deformity correction. The frame index for proximal versus distal osteotomies showed no significant difference, with a mean 48.5 days/cm (30 to 85) and 48.9 days/cm (28 to 81), respectively (p = 0.896). In the proximal osteotomy group, two patients suffered complications (one refracture after frame removal and one failure of regenerate maturation with subsequent valgus deformity) compared to zero in the distal osteotomy group. Two patients in each group sustained obstacles that required intervention (one necessitated guided growth, one fibula lengthening, and two required change of wires). There was a similar number of problems (pin-site infections) in each group. CONCLUSION: Our data show that distal tibial osteotomies can be safely employed in limb lengthening for children using a circular frame, which has implications in planning a surgical strategy; for example, when treating a tibia with shortening and distal deformity, a second osteotomy for proximal lengthening is not required.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1273-1278.

Efficacy and Safety of "Sleeper Plate" in Temporary Hemiepiphysiodesis and the Observation of "Tethering".

BACKGROUND: Guided growth is commonly performed by placing an extraperiosteal 2-hole plate across the growth plate with one epiphyseal and one metaphyseal screw. Recent studies investigated the efficacy of the removal of the metaphyseal screw only (sleeper plate) after correction. They concluded the practice to be unnecessary as only 19% of patients showed recurrence of deformity. This study aims to examine the incidence of rebound and undesired bony in-growth of the plate (tethering) after metaphyseal screw removal only. METHODS: In this retrospective case series, patient data on 144 plates inserted around the knee were obtained. Plates still in situ (n=69) at the time of study and full hardware removal (n=50) were excluded. The remaining 25 plates had only the metaphyseal screw removed after completed deformity correction. We analyzed the rate of tethering, rebound, and maintenance of correction in 2 age groups at latest follow (mean of 3.5 y). The Fisher exact test with Freeman-Halton extension was used to analyze categorical data and the Student t test for descriptive variables. RESULTS: Twenty-five plates were identified as "sleeper plates" in our series. Thirteen plates (52%) maintained the achieved correction after a mean of 21 months (range: 4 to 39 mo), 9 plates (36%) required screw reinsertion due to rebound after a mean of 22 months (range: 12 to 48 mo) from screw removal, and 4 plates (16%) showed tethering with undesired continuation of guided growth after a mean of 14 months (range: 7 to 22 mo) from screw removal. Younger patients (<8 y at time of plate insertion) had higher rates of rebound and tethering ( P =0.0112, Fisher exact test). All tethering occurred in titanium plates, none occurred in steel plates. CONCLUSIONS: The sleeper plate is an acceptable treatment strategy for coronal deformities around the knee, however, tethering and rebound may occur, especially in younger patients. Titanium plates may increase the risk of tethering, however, further long-term follow-up is needed as there were only 6 steel plates versus 19 titanium in this study. We stress the importance of close postoperative follow-up to identify signs of tethering and rebound early to prevent over-correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-retrospective case study.

Ilizarov Method for Acute Paediatric Tibial Fractures.

AIM AND BACKGROUND: A systemic method for the application of Ilizarov fixators and on-table fracture reduction is described in this instructional article. This technique has been developed from the unit's practice in adult patients. The indications, underlying principles and rationale for the method are also discussed. TECHNIQUE: The basic concept involves the construction of a series of concentric, colinear rings aligned with the mechanical axis of the limb. An orthogonal ring block is initially placed on the proximal segment and extended distally. Wire to ring reduction techniques are used resulting in the contact, alignment and stability required for early full weight-bearing, free movement of knee and ankle, and subsequent healing. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Our step-by-step guide takes the reader through a systematic approach to surgery along with tips and tricks on how to achieve reduction and avoid the common pitfalls. With this method, it is possible to achieve an on-table reduction and correction of a multiplanar deformity without the use of expensive hexapod technology. This may allow less experienced users reproduce the technique with a shorter learning curve. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Messner J, Prior CP, Pincher B et al. Ilizarov Method for Acute Paediatric Tibial Fractures. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(1):46-52.

Clinical outcomes in pediatric tibial lengthening and deformity correction: a comparison of the Taylor Spatial Frame with the Orthex Hexapod System.

PURPOSE: Comparison of two hexapod frame systems in paediatric tibial deformity correction; the Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) and Orthex Hexapod System. METHODS: Paediatric patients with congenital and acquired tibial deformities treated with either TSF (between 2014 and 2016) or Orthex (between 2017 and 2019) frames were included in a retrospective comparative study. Outcome measures were healing index, pin infection rate, regenerate quality and density, software residual rate, deformity correction accuracy, strut exchanges and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The TSF group had 17 patients (18 frames) and the Orthex group had 21 patients (25 frames). The most common indications for tibial deformity correction were fibular hemimelia (14) and septic or traumatic growth arrest (8). The median time in frame was 230 days (TSF) versus 203 days (Orthex) (p= 0.06). The mean lengthening achieved was 54 mm (TSF) and 51 mm (Orthex) (p = 0.41). The healing index was 41 days/cm (TSF) versus 43 days/cm (Orthex) (p = 0.70). Pin site infections occurred more in the TSF cohort (40%) than in the Orthex cohort (18%) (p < 0.001). The regenerate in the Orthex group showed higher density at three months (p = 0.029) and was more homogenous (p = 0.023) at six months after frame application. Strut exchanges were less frequent with the Orthex system (p < 0.0001). QoL measures were similar in both cohorts (p = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to compare two hexapod designs in paediatric orthopaedics. The Orthex system showed superiority in regenerate quality and a significant reduction in pin site infection rates. Both systems delivered predictable and accurate limb deformity correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Duration of Administration of Antibiotic Agents for Open Fractures: Meta-Analysis of the Existing Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection remains a significant concern in treating patients with open fractures. In prevention of such, current guidelines support the immediate administration of antibiotic agents. The duration of antibiotic treatment is still controversial. A maximum of 72 hours, even in the absence of definitive soft tissue coverage, is recommended in a number of recent guidelines and consensus reports. The aim of this meta-analysis was to review and analyze all published literature evidence with regard to antibiotic duration in open fracture treatment. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of the available literature from the 1970s until the present, including five comparative (1284 open fractures) and 27 observational (5408 open fractures) studies. A subgroup analysis was further performed, based on the Gustilo type of open injury and the anatomic location of the fracture. In addition, we investigated the effect of antibiotic regimes shorter than 72 hours on infection rates. RESULTS: In the comparative studies, the summarized estimate of infection rate favored less than a 72-hour duration of antibiotic treatment, because prolongation of antibiotic treatment more than 72 hours did not seem to offer any protective effect against septic complications of open fractures (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-1.21). The same trend was also documented in the observational studies, where the overall pooled estimate of infection rate was 10% (95% CI: 6.8%-14%) when antibiotic treatment did not exceed 72 hours and 9.2% (95% CI: 6.6%-12.2%) for more than 72 hours of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.53). In Gustilo I and II open fractures, the calculated pooled estimate of infection rate did not differ significantly when antibiotic treatment exceeded 72 hours (6%, 95% CI: 3.3%-9%) compared with shorter (up to 72 h) antibiotic protocols (4%, 95% CI: 1.8%-7%) (p = 0.52). In Gustilo III open fractures also, the calculated pooled estimate of infection rate (21.3%, 95% CI: 13%-31%) when duration of antibiotic treatment was more than 72 hours did not differ significantly compared with a shorter (less than 72 h) antibiotic treatment (17.7%, 95% CI: 12.5%-23.5%) (p = 0.39). A further subgroup analysis indicated that even shorter antibiotic regimes (24-48 h) were also equivalent to prolonged regimes of more than 72 hours in terms of infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis could not substantiate any benefit against septic complications of a prolonged duration of antibiotic treatment of open fractures, irrespective of their severity.