These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Excision of Physeal Bars of the Distal Femur, Proximal and Distal Tibia Followed to Maturity.
    Author: Yuan BJ, Stans AA, Larson DR, Peterson HA.
    Journal: J Pediatr Orthop; 2019 Jul; 39(6):e422-e429. PubMed ID: 30817419.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: In the 50 years since a premature partial physeal arrest (a physeal bar) was first excised from an epiphysis there have been no large in-depth studies reporting the results in patients followed to skeletal maturity. This paper reports the results of physeal bar resection surgery in a group of patients followed to skeletal maturity, documenting the restored growth of the affected physis, the affected bone, and the final limb-length discrepancy. METHODS: Forty-eight patients underwent physeal bar resection of the distal femur (21), proximal tibia (9), and distal tibia (18) by 1 surgeon (H.A.P.) from 1968 through 1996, and were followed prospectively to skeletal maturity with clinical and radiologic examinations. Factors such as sex, age at time of injury, etiology of the bar, physeal bar location and size, age at time of bar excision, interposition material, and additional surgical procedures were analyzed with respect to physis, bone, and limb growth following bar resection. RESULTS: The mean growth for the entire bone following physeal bar excision was 7.6 cm for the distal femur, 4.7 cm for the proximal tibia, and 7.5 cm for the distal tibia, compared with growth in the contralateral control bone of 6.8 cm in the femur, 5.0 cm in the proximal tibia, and 7.8 cm in the distal tibia. The maximum bone growth following bar excision in a single patient was 21.3 cm for the distal femur, 10.3 cm for the proximal tibia, and 18.6 cm for the distal tibia. The mean limb-length discrepancy at maturity was -1.7 cm for the distal femur, -1.3 cm for the proximal tibia, and -1.1 cm for the distal tibia (all sites combined -1.4 cm). Fourteen patients (29%) had only the 1 bar excision with no other accompanying or subsequent surgery. Thirty-four patients (71%) had 1 to 4 accompanying or subsequent leg length or angular correcting procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Physeal bar excision to restore growth when applied to the appropriate patient is a useful, rewarding procedure, reducing the number of surgical limb length equalizing procedures. It is a demanding surgical procedure and requires diligent and careful follow-up until maturity. Additional limb length equalizing surgery is frequently needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series, level IV.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]