Growth retardation (hemiepiphyseal stapling) and growth acceleration (periosteal resection) as a method to improve guided growth in a lamb model

Kennett J. Noonan, Matthew A. Halanski, Ellen Leiferman, Norman Wilsman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Guided growth corrects pediatric limb deformity by inhibiting growth on the convexity of the bone. Both modular and rigid implants have been used; we endeavor to determine whether a clear advantage of one implant exists. We further hypothesize that improved correction could be realized by accelerating growth with resection of the periosteum. Methods: Sixteen lambs underwent guided growth of the medial proximal tibia (the opposite limb served as a control). Group 1 used a rigid staple (n=5); group 2 a modular plate and screw construct (n=5), and group 3 had a similar device plus periosteal resection (n=6). Radiographs tracked the progression of deformity in the coronal plane. Before sacrifice, pulsed fluorochrome labels allowed for temporal and spatial growth rate analysis. At sacrifice, True Deformity was calculated (and compared with control tibia) from standardized radiographs in the coronal and sagittal planes. Device Efficiencies were normalized by dividing True Deformity produced (degrees) by the Expected Growth gain (mm) from the control limb. Results: Group 3 produced greater coronal plane deformity than group 1 by an average of 2.2 degrees per month (P=0.001) and group 2 by an average of 2.4 degrees per month (P=0.0007). At sacrifice, groups 1 and 2 were equally effective at limiting growth to 75% of control; no differences in growth retardation were noted. No differences in Device Efficiency were noted between groups 1 and 2. The Device Efficiency was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 with comparison with group 3 (P=0.05 and P=0.022); with a 2.5 degree/mm faster deformation in the stripped cohort. Conclusions: Rigid implants initially produced deformity quicker than modular constructs; yet ultimately, both implants were equally effective at guiding growth. Device Efficiency for the modular group improved significantly with the addition of periosteal stripping as method to accelerate growth.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)362-369
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Growth
Equipment and Supplies
Extremities
Tibia
Periosteum
Fluorescent Dyes
Pediatrics
Bone and Bones

Keywords

  • Guided growth
  • Hemiepiphysiodesis
  • Lamb
  • Leg length discrepancy
  • Limb deformity
  • Periosteal resection
  • Staple

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Growth retardation (hemiepiphyseal stapling) and growth acceleration (periosteal resection) as a method to improve guided growth in a lamb model. / Noonan, Kennett J.; Halanski, Matthew A.; Leiferman, Ellen; Wilsman, Norman.

In: Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, Vol. 36, No. 4, 01.01.2016, p. 362-369.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bb67b3df432c4cf4a4144c70ee17280b,
title = "Growth retardation (hemiepiphyseal stapling) and growth acceleration (periosteal resection) as a method to improve guided growth in a lamb model",
abstract = "Background: Guided growth corrects pediatric limb deformity by inhibiting growth on the convexity of the bone. Both modular and rigid implants have been used; we endeavor to determine whether a clear advantage of one implant exists. We further hypothesize that improved correction could be realized by accelerating growth with resection of the periosteum. Methods: Sixteen lambs underwent guided growth of the medial proximal tibia (the opposite limb served as a control). Group 1 used a rigid staple (n=5); group 2 a modular plate and screw construct (n=5), and group 3 had a similar device plus periosteal resection (n=6). Radiographs tracked the progression of deformity in the coronal plane. Before sacrifice, pulsed fluorochrome labels allowed for temporal and spatial growth rate analysis. At sacrifice, True Deformity was calculated (and compared with control tibia) from standardized radiographs in the coronal and sagittal planes. Device Efficiencies were normalized by dividing True Deformity produced (degrees) by the Expected Growth gain (mm) from the control limb. Results: Group 3 produced greater coronal plane deformity than group 1 by an average of 2.2 degrees per month (P=0.001) and group 2 by an average of 2.4 degrees per month (P=0.0007). At sacrifice, groups 1 and 2 were equally effective at limiting growth to 75{\%} of control; no differences in growth retardation were noted. No differences in Device Efficiency were noted between groups 1 and 2. The Device Efficiency was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 with comparison with group 3 (P=0.05 and P=0.022); with a 2.5 degree/mm faster deformation in the stripped cohort. Conclusions: Rigid implants initially produced deformity quicker than modular constructs; yet ultimately, both implants were equally effective at guiding growth. Device Efficiency for the modular group improved significantly with the addition of periosteal stripping as method to accelerate growth.",
keywords = "Guided growth, Hemiepiphysiodesis, Lamb, Leg length discrepancy, Limb deformity, Periosteal resection, Staple",
author = "Noonan, {Kennett J.} and Halanski, {Matthew A.} and Ellen Leiferman and Norman Wilsman",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/BPO.0000000000000459",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "362--369",
journal = "Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics",
issn = "0271-6798",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Growth retardation (hemiepiphyseal stapling) and growth acceleration (periosteal resection) as a method to improve guided growth in a lamb model

AU - Noonan, Kennett J.

AU - Halanski, Matthew A.

AU - Leiferman, Ellen

AU - Wilsman, Norman

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background: Guided growth corrects pediatric limb deformity by inhibiting growth on the convexity of the bone. Both modular and rigid implants have been used; we endeavor to determine whether a clear advantage of one implant exists. We further hypothesize that improved correction could be realized by accelerating growth with resection of the periosteum. Methods: Sixteen lambs underwent guided growth of the medial proximal tibia (the opposite limb served as a control). Group 1 used a rigid staple (n=5); group 2 a modular plate and screw construct (n=5), and group 3 had a similar device plus periosteal resection (n=6). Radiographs tracked the progression of deformity in the coronal plane. Before sacrifice, pulsed fluorochrome labels allowed for temporal and spatial growth rate analysis. At sacrifice, True Deformity was calculated (and compared with control tibia) from standardized radiographs in the coronal and sagittal planes. Device Efficiencies were normalized by dividing True Deformity produced (degrees) by the Expected Growth gain (mm) from the control limb. Results: Group 3 produced greater coronal plane deformity than group 1 by an average of 2.2 degrees per month (P=0.001) and group 2 by an average of 2.4 degrees per month (P=0.0007). At sacrifice, groups 1 and 2 were equally effective at limiting growth to 75% of control; no differences in growth retardation were noted. No differences in Device Efficiency were noted between groups 1 and 2. The Device Efficiency was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 with comparison with group 3 (P=0.05 and P=0.022); with a 2.5 degree/mm faster deformation in the stripped cohort. Conclusions: Rigid implants initially produced deformity quicker than modular constructs; yet ultimately, both implants were equally effective at guiding growth. Device Efficiency for the modular group improved significantly with the addition of periosteal stripping as method to accelerate growth.

AB - Background: Guided growth corrects pediatric limb deformity by inhibiting growth on the convexity of the bone. Both modular and rigid implants have been used; we endeavor to determine whether a clear advantage of one implant exists. We further hypothesize that improved correction could be realized by accelerating growth with resection of the periosteum. Methods: Sixteen lambs underwent guided growth of the medial proximal tibia (the opposite limb served as a control). Group 1 used a rigid staple (n=5); group 2 a modular plate and screw construct (n=5), and group 3 had a similar device plus periosteal resection (n=6). Radiographs tracked the progression of deformity in the coronal plane. Before sacrifice, pulsed fluorochrome labels allowed for temporal and spatial growth rate analysis. At sacrifice, True Deformity was calculated (and compared with control tibia) from standardized radiographs in the coronal and sagittal planes. Device Efficiencies were normalized by dividing True Deformity produced (degrees) by the Expected Growth gain (mm) from the control limb. Results: Group 3 produced greater coronal plane deformity than group 1 by an average of 2.2 degrees per month (P=0.001) and group 2 by an average of 2.4 degrees per month (P=0.0007). At sacrifice, groups 1 and 2 were equally effective at limiting growth to 75% of control; no differences in growth retardation were noted. No differences in Device Efficiency were noted between groups 1 and 2. The Device Efficiency was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 with comparison with group 3 (P=0.05 and P=0.022); with a 2.5 degree/mm faster deformation in the stripped cohort. Conclusions: Rigid implants initially produced deformity quicker than modular constructs; yet ultimately, both implants were equally effective at guiding growth. Device Efficiency for the modular group improved significantly with the addition of periosteal stripping as method to accelerate growth.

KW - Guided growth

KW - Hemiepiphysiodesis

KW - Lamb

KW - Leg length discrepancy

KW - Limb deformity

KW - Periosteal resection

KW - Staple

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84970024532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84970024532&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000459

DO - 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000459

M3 - Article

C2 - 27159337

AN - SCOPUS:84970024532

VL - 36

SP - 362

EP - 369

JO - Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics

JF - Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics

SN - 0271-6798

IS - 4

ER -