Prediction of loss of correction after hemiepiphysiodesis for the alignment of lower limb angular deformities.

ABSTRACT: Guided growth by temporary hemiepiphysiodesis (HEPD) is established for the alignment of lower limb angular deformities. This retrospective cohort study was designed to assess the effect of HEPD in idiopathic coronal plane deformities around the knee and on the frontal knee joint line orientation, and to test the frontal knee joint line as predictive means for recurrence.Fourty-four patients (78 deformities: valgus n = 64, varus n = 14) were enrolled in the retrospective observational study. Mechanical axis deviation, mechanical lateral distal femoral angle, and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle were assessed prior to surgery and during follow-up. The facultative frontal knee joint line angle (FKJLA) was used as predictive tool. Cases of remaining growth potential (n = 45/78) after implant removal were followed to assess rebound deformity.Pre-operative angles of the mechanical axis were corrected average 9.0 months after HEPD. Pre-operative assessment of the frontal knee joint line revealed a mean of 3.9° in valgus, and -1.0° in varus deformities. At time of complete deformity correction, mean FKJLA was -0.2° in valgus, and -0.8° in varus deformities. Mean shift of FKJLA was significantly higher after singleHEPD compared to combiHEPD (P < .001). Patients having an unphysiological FKJLA (>/<0°-3°) after correction of mechanical axis had a significantly higher risk of rebound deformity (P = .01). Regression analysis showed a 60.5% higher risk of rebound deformity per each degree deviating from the FKJLA physiological range. Age, gender, or body mass index had no impact.Temporary HEPD offers great potential for the correction of the mechanical axis and the frontal knee joint line. An unphysiological change of the frontal knee joint line is associated with a high risk of recurrent angular deformities. CombiHEPD instead of singleHEPD seems to be safer to prevent detrimental frontal knee joint line shift.Level of Evidence: Retrospective comparative therapeutic study, Level III.

How precise is the PRECICE compared to the ISKD in intramedullary limb lengthening? Reliability and safety in 26 procedures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The PRECICE intramedullary limb lengthening system uses a new technique with a magnetic rod and a motorized external remote controller (ERC) with rotational magnetic field. We evaluated the reliability and safety of the PRECICE system. METHODS: We compared our preliminary results with PRECICE in 24 patients (26 nails) with the known difficulties in the use of mechanical lengthening devices such as the ISKD. We used the Paley classification for evaluation of problems, obstacles, and complications. RESULTS: 2 nails were primarily without function, and 24/26 nails lengthened over the desired distance. Lengthening desired was 38 mm and lengthening obtained was 37 mm. There were 2 nail breakages, 1 in the welding seam and 1 because of a fall that occurred during consolidation. ERC usage was problematic mostly in patients with femoral lengthening. Adjustment of the ERC was necessary in 10 of 24 cases. 15 cases had implant-associated problems, obstacles were seen in 5 cases, and complications were seen in each of 4 cases. INTERPRETAION: The reliability of the PRECICE system is comparable to that of other intramedullary lengthening devices such as the ISKD. The motorized external remote controller and its application by the patients is a weak point of the system and needs strict supervision.