Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series
Supramalleolar osteotomy (SMO) in pediatric patients can be fixed in various ways. We analyzed the records of 77 pediatric patients (124 SMOs) aged ≤16 years. In 56 patients (96 SMOs), K-wires were used to stabilize SMOs (WF group), while 21 patients (28 SMOs) were treated with locking compression p...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-01-01
|
Series: | Children |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/8/2/86 |
_version_ | 1827597640043331584 |
---|---|
author | Thomas Schlemmer Reinald Brunner Bernhard Speth Johannes Mayr Erich Rutz |
author_facet | Thomas Schlemmer Reinald Brunner Bernhard Speth Johannes Mayr Erich Rutz |
author_sort | Thomas Schlemmer |
collection | DOAJ |
description | Supramalleolar osteotomy (SMO) in pediatric patients can be fixed in various ways. We analyzed the records of 77 pediatric patients (124 SMOs) aged ≤16 years. In 56 patients (96 SMOs), K-wires were used to stabilize SMOs (WF group), while 21 patients (28 SMOs) were treated with locking compression plates (LCPs; PF group). We recorded time to radiographic consolidation, rate of complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and time to implant removal. Mean time to radiographic consolidation of SMOs was 7.2 weeks in the WF group and 11.1 weeks in the PF group. Complication rate in the WF group was 10.7%. LOS was similar in the two groups (7.0 days in the WF group vs. 7.3 days in the PF group). K-wire stabilization resulted in a shortened interval until consolidation of osteotomies, but children were required to use a cast. Stabilization of SMOs with LCPs facilitated early mobilization and functional rehabilitation with no need to apply a cast. In conclusion, both methods provided safe fixation of SMOs with a low rate of complications. K-wire stabilization combined with a cast achieves fast consolidation of SMOs. We recommend SMO stabilization with angular stable LCPs in patients with muscular weakness or spasticity in whom early mobilization and physiotherapy are necessary to prevent loss of muscle power, muscle function, and bone mass. |
first_indexed | 2024-03-09T03:35:15Z |
format | Article |
id | doaj.art-2148711e7b824b82b751958d9916754f |
institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
issn | 2227-9067 |
language | English |
last_indexed | 2024-03-09T03:35:15Z |
publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
publisher | MDPI AG |
record_format | Article |
series | Children |
spelling | doaj.art-2148711e7b824b82b751958d9916754f2023-12-03T14:49:36ZengMDPI AGChildren2227-90672021-01-01828610.3390/children8020086Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case SeriesThomas Schlemmer0Reinald Brunner1Bernhard Speth2Johannes Mayr3Erich Rutz4Neuroorthopedics, University Children’s Hospital Basel (UKBB), Spitalstrasse 33, 4056 Basel, SwitzerlandNeuroorthopedics, University Children’s Hospital Basel (UKBB), Spitalstrasse 33, 4056 Basel, SwitzerlandNeuroorthopedics, University Children’s Hospital Basel (UKBB), Spitalstrasse 33, 4056 Basel, SwitzerlandNeuroorthopedics, University Children’s Hospital Basel (UKBB), Spitalstrasse 33, 4056 Basel, SwitzerlandFaculty of Medicine, The University of Basel, 4001 Basel, SwitzerlandSupramalleolar osteotomy (SMO) in pediatric patients can be fixed in various ways. We analyzed the records of 77 pediatric patients (124 SMOs) aged ≤16 years. In 56 patients (96 SMOs), K-wires were used to stabilize SMOs (WF group), while 21 patients (28 SMOs) were treated with locking compression plates (LCPs; PF group). We recorded time to radiographic consolidation, rate of complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and time to implant removal. Mean time to radiographic consolidation of SMOs was 7.2 weeks in the WF group and 11.1 weeks in the PF group. Complication rate in the WF group was 10.7%. LOS was similar in the two groups (7.0 days in the WF group vs. 7.3 days in the PF group). K-wire stabilization resulted in a shortened interval until consolidation of osteotomies, but children were required to use a cast. Stabilization of SMOs with LCPs facilitated early mobilization and functional rehabilitation with no need to apply a cast. In conclusion, both methods provided safe fixation of SMOs with a low rate of complications. K-wire stabilization combined with a cast achieves fast consolidation of SMOs. We recommend SMO stabilization with angular stable LCPs in patients with muscular weakness or spasticity in whom early mobilization and physiotherapy are necessary to prevent loss of muscle power, muscle function, and bone mass.https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/8/2/86supramalleolar osteotomyfixation methodslocking compression plateLOSKirschner wireradiographic consolidation |
spellingShingle | Thomas Schlemmer Reinald Brunner Bernhard Speth Johannes Mayr Erich Rutz Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series Children supramalleolar osteotomy fixation methods locking compression plate LOS Kirschner wire radiographic consolidation |
title | Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series |
title_full | Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series |
title_fullStr | Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series |
title_short | Differences between Two Methods to Stabilize Supramalleolar Osteotomies in Children—A Retrospective Case Series |
title_sort | differences between two methods to stabilize supramalleolar osteotomies in children a retrospective case series |
topic | supramalleolar osteotomy fixation methods locking compression plate LOS Kirschner wire radiographic consolidation |
url | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/8/2/86 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thomasschlemmer differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries AT reinaldbrunner differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries AT bernhardspeth differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries AT johannesmayr differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries AT erichrutz differencesbetweentwomethodstostabilizesupramalleolarosteotomiesinchildrenaretrospectivecaseseries |