Case Reports

Use of a Core Reamer for the Resection of a Central Distal Femoral Physeal Bone Bridge: A Novel Technique with 3-Year Follow-up

Publish date: May 10, 2018

References

1. Murphy GA. Disorders of tendons and fascia and adolescent and adult pes planus. In: Canale ST, Beaty JH, eds. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. 12th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby-Elsevier; 2013:3966-3972.

2. Khoshhal KI, Kiefer GN. Physeal bridge resection. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13(1):47-58. doi:10.5435/00124635-200501000-00007.

3. Stans AA. Excision of physeal bar. In: Wiesel SW, ed. Operative Techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011:1244-1249.

4. Loraas EK, Schmale GA. Endoscopically aided physeal bar takedown and guided growth for the treatment of angular limb deformity. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2012;21(4):348-351. doi:10.1097/BPB.0b013e328346d308.

5. Inoue T, Naito M, Fuhii T, Akiyoshi Y, Yoshimura I, Takamura K. Partial physeal growth arrest treated by bridge resection and artificial dura substitute interposition. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2006;15(1):65-69. doi:10.1097/01202412-200601000-00014.

6. Arkader A, Warner WC Jr, Horn BD, Shaw RN, Wells L. Predicting the outcome of physeal fractures of the distal femur. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007;27(6):703-708. doi:10.1097/BPO.0b013e3180dca0e5.

7. Langenskiöld A. Surgical treatment of partial closure of the growth plate. J Pediatr Orthop. 1981;1(1):3-11. doi:10.1097/01241398-198101010-00002.

8. Marsh JS, Polzhofer GK. Arthroscopically assisted central physeal bar resection. J Pediatr Orthop. 2006;26(2):255-259. doi:10.1097/01.bpo.0000218533.43986.e1.

9. Williamson RV, Staheli LT. Partial physeal growth arrest: treatment by bridge resection and fat interposition. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10(6):769-776. doi:10.1097/01241398-199011000-00012.

10. Moreta J, Abril JC, Miranda C. Arthroscopy-assisted resection-interposition of post-traumatic central physeal bridges. Rev Esp Cir Orthop Traumatol. 2013;57(5):333-339. doi:10.1016/j.recot.2013.07.004.

11. Hasler CC, Foster BK. Secondary tethers after physeal bar resection: a common source of failure? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;405:242-249.

12. Paley D, Bhave A, Herzenberg JE, Bowen JR. Multiplier method for predicting limb-length discrepancy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(10):1432-1446. doi:10.2106/00004623-200010000-00010.

13. Khoshhal KI, Kiefer GN. Physeal bridge resection. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13(1):47-58. doi:10.5435/00124635-200501000-00007.

14. Rathjen KE, Kim HKW. Physeal injuries and growth disturbances. In: Flynn JM, Skaggs DL, Waters PM, eds. Rockwood and Wilkins’ Fractures in Children. 8th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters-Kluwer; 2015:135-137.

15. Peterson CA, Peterson HA. Analysis of the incidence of injuries to the epiphyseal growth plate. J Trauma. 1972;12(4):275-281. doi:10.1097/00005373-197204000-00002.

16. Pritchett JW. Longitudinal growth and growth-plate activity in the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;275:274-279.

17. Cassebaum WH, Patterson AH. Fracture of the distal femoral epiphysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1965;41:79-91. doi:10.1097/00003086-196500410-00009.

18. Dahl WJ, Silva S, Vanderhave KL. Distal femoral physeal fixation: are smooth pins really safe? J Pedatir Orthop. 2014;34(2):134-138. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000083.

19. Roberts J. Fracture separation of the distal femoral epiphyseal growth line. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1324.

20. Broughton NS, Dickens DR, Cole WG, Menelaus MB. Epiphyseolysis for partial growth plate arrest. Results after four years or at maturity. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71(1):13-16. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.71B1.2914983.

21. Hresko MT, Kasser JR. Physeal arrest about the knee associated with non-physeal fractures in the lower extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(5):698-703. doi:10.2106/00004623-198971050-00009.

22. Lurie B, Koff MF, Shah P, et al. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging of physeal injury: reliability and clinical utility. J Pediatr Orthop. 2014;34(3):239-245. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000104.

23. Sailhan F, Chotel F, Guibal AL, et al. Three-dimensional MR imaging in the assessment of physeal growth arrest. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(9):1600-1608. doi:10.1007/s00330-004-2319-z.

24. Kang HG, Yoon SJ, Kim JR. Resection of a physeal bar under computer-assisted guidance. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(10):1452-1455. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24587.

OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE

With the patient supine on the operating table and after the administration of general anesthesia, 3-dimensional (3-D) fluoroscopy was used to localize the bone bridge, which confirmed the fluoroscopic location that was previously visualized through preoperative 3-D imaging. The leg was elevated, and a tourniquet was applied and inflated. A lateral parapatellar approach was used to isolate the distal femoral physis anteriorly because the bone bridge was centered just lateral to the central portion of the distal femoral physis. A Kirschner wire was placed in the center of the bridge under anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic imaging (Figures 3A-3E).

A series of core reamers were then introduced, starting at 10 mm diameter and increasing to 18 mm diameter before complete resection was accomplished. Irrigation was used to prevent the thermal necrosis of the physis during reaming, and lateral fluoroscopic imaging was used to prevent injury to the posterior neurovascular structures. Each time a reaming was completed, the physeal bone bed was inspected to confirm complete bone bridge resection (Figure 3C). Once 18 mm of the physis had been removed, direct visual inspection confirmed normal physis was present on all sides of the bone that remained following physeal bar resection (Figures 3D and 4A, 4B).

The defect was irrigated with normal saline and filled with cranioplast (Figure 3E). Cranioplast (the methyl ester of methacrylic acid that easily polymerizes into polymethyl methacrylate) was chosen because the amount of adipose tissue was insufficient for harvesting for interposition given the patient’s lean body habitus. Moreover, the use of the cranioplast prevented the occurrence of exothermic reactions during curing and provided hemostasis because the cranioplast occupied the entire cavity and was strong enough to provide structural support.¹³ When partially set into a putty-like state to allow molding, the cranioplast was carefully contoured within the femoral trochlea. To protect the resection site from pathologic fracture, the patient was placed in a long-leg cast, and only protected weight-bearing with the use of a walker was allowed for 6 weeks.

OUTCOME

The patient healed uneventfully, and early range-of-motion exercises were started 6 weeks postoperatively. At 6-month follow-up, his leg-length discrepancy was 2.7 cm, and the bone bridge did not recur. At 3-year follow-up, his leg-length discrepancy was 3.0 cm, and the bone bridge did not recur. Over the 3 years postoperatively, the patient exhibited 9.8 cm of growth on his operative side and 9.5 cm on his nonoperative side (Figure 5).

The patient has returned to full function and has had no pain, patellofemoral complaints, or complications associated with the cranioplast. He currently is being followed for his leg-length discrepancy. A contralateral epiphysiodesis is planned to equalize his leg-length discrepancy.

DISCUSSION

Given the considerable growth potential of the distal femoral physis,^1,14-16an injury to the distal femoral physis and the formation of a physeal bone bridge can have a profound effect on a young patient in terms of leg-length discrepancy and angular deformity. Fracture from trauma or infection is a common cause of physeal bone bridges.^6,17-19 The etiology of our patient’s distal femoral physeal bone bridge is idiopathic, which is considerably less common than other etiologies, and the incidence of idiopathic physeal bone bridge formation is not well established in the literature. Hresko and Kasser²¹ identified atraumatic physeal bone bridge formations in 7 patients. Among the 13 patients with physeal bone bridges described by Broughton and colleagues,²⁰ the cause of bridge formation is unknown in 1.

Physeal bone bridges that form centrally are particularly challenging because they are difficult to visualize through a peripheral approach. A number of methods for resecting central physeal bone bridges have been described. These methods have varying degrees of success. In 1981, Langenskiöld⁷ first described the creation of a metaphyseal mirror and the use of a dental mirror for visualization. This technique, however, yielded unfavorable results in 16% of patients. Williamson and Staheli⁹ reported poor results in 23% of patients. Loraas and Schmale⁴ described the use of an endoscope, termed an osteoscope, for visualization, citing advantages of superior illumination and potential for image magnification and capture. Marsh and Polzhofer⁸ also showed this technique to have low morbidity but poor results in 13% of patients, whereas Moreta and colleagues¹⁰ reported poor results in 2 out of 5 patients. The rate of poor results of these methods may be related to the technical difficulty of using dental mirrors and arthroscopes and can be improved by highly efficient direct methods with improved visualization, such as the method described in this article.

Continue to: Proper imaging is necessary for...