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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Thomas Schlemmer, Reinald Brunner, Bernhard Speth, Johannes Mayr, Erich Rutz
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