- Case report
- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Ipsilateral distal femoral and proximal tibial epiphyseal growth plate injury: a case report
© Gulabi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 2 January 2013
Accepted: 2 May 2013
Published: 31 May 2013
Both the isolated distal femoral epiphysiolysis and the isolated proximal tibial epiphysiolysis are the least common epiphyseal injuries. Even though they are uncommon, they have a high incidence rate of complications.
We present a case with Gustilo-Anderson grade 3b open and Salter-Harris type 1 epiphysiolysis of the distal femur and proximal tibia caused by a farm machinery accident. The patient was a 10-year-old boy, treated by open reduction and internal fixation.
Although distal femoral and proximal tibial growth plate injuries are rarely seen benign fractures, their management requires meticulous care. Anatomic reduction is important, especially to minimize the risk of growth arrest and the development of degenerative arthritis. However, there is a high incidence of growth arrest and neurovascular injury with these type of fractures.
Isolated distal femoral epiphysiolysis, and the isolated proximal tibial epiphysiolysis are both very rarely seen [1, 2]. Distal femoral and proximal tibial epiphysiolysis comprise 3% and 0.5% of all epiphysiolysis, respectively [3, 4]. Even though they are uncommon, they have a high incidence rate of complications [1, 2]. They are mostly caused by traffic accidents, sports trauma, and horse riding accidents .
In our review of English language medical literature, ipsilateral distal femoral and proximal tibial epiphysiolysis have rarely been encountered. Our patient was the first case with Gustilo-Anderson grade 3b open and Salter-Harris (SH) type 1 epiphysiolysis caused by a farm machinery accident.
Surgical treatment of the patient was performed on the day of presentation. The patient was placed in a supine position under general anesthesia. His right knee was approached through a 3cm-long lateral longitudinal incision at the level of the distal femoral physis. Skin, subcutaneous tissue, fascia lata, and vastus lateralis were dissected away, and periosteum was elevated. By flexing the knee 90°, the posteriorly displaced distal femoral epiphysis was reduced with a blunt periosteal elevator. Fixation was achieved by using two crossing 4.0mm cannulated screws from distal to proximal direction. After debridement and irrigation of the large skin and soft tissue lesion on the lateral aspect of the proximal tibia, a 3cm longitudinal incision, proximal to the skin defect at the level of the proximal tibial physis, was performed. Then, skin, subcutaneous tissue, and periosteum were elevated. While the knee was positioned at 90° flexion, proximal tibial epiphysis was reduced, and fixation was achieved by using two crossing 4.0mm cannulated screws.
Distal femoral epiphysis provides 70% of the longitudinal growth of the femur, and 40% of the overall growth of the lower extremity. Skeletal growth at the distal femoral physis is the fastest of all physis [1, 2]. Distal femoral epiphysiolysis is a rarely seen injury with frequently seen complications [1, 2]. Among all of the most observed epiphysiolysis, it is the most common growth plate injury in children . It constitutes 5% of all epiphyseal fractures [3, 4].
Distal femoral epiphysis is present at birth, and forms both femoral condyles. It fuses with metaphysis in girls at 14 to 16, and in boys at 16 to 18 years of age [4, 5]. Distal femoral epiphysis forms the proximal insertion point of the gastrocnemius. Distal femoral epiphysiolysis mostly occurs as a consequence of traffic accidents, sports (especially horse riding) injuries, and falls from a height . Epiphyseal fractures were first mentioned by Ollier in 1867 . They are classified according to the Salter-Harris classification. Salter-Harris type 2 is the most encountered form [1, 5–7]. In 1894, Hutchinson reported that rotation or traction of the femur was the pathogenic mechanism of the femoral epiphysiolysis [2, 6].
The most frequently observed complications of distal femoral epiphysiolysis are growth disturbance, angular deformities, restricted ROM, instability, and neurovascular problems [2, 3, 8, 9]. The severity of the damage to the growth plate may be related to several factors; including age, high-energy trauma, type of fracture, degree and direction of displacement, and violation of the physis by pins .
Growth arrest is the most observed complication, which has been shown to account for 40% of cases . Clinically, poor outcomes are defined as a leg length discrepancy of ≥1.5cm and varus, valgus or flexion deformity of ≥10° [2, 8]. Growth arrest is frequently seen, especially in SH type 4 fractures. Growth arrest can occur as a result of direct physeal injury, epiphyseal bone bridge formation or nonanatomical reduction, which can be demonstrated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) . Basener et al. reported that growth arrest had occurred in 64% of SH type 4, 49% in SH type 3, 58% in SH type 2, and 36% in SH type 1 fractures . Extreme displacement and advanced SH type are predisposing factors for growth arrest [1, 2].
Several studies have shown that incidence of growth disturbance after distal femoral physis disruption is high, and usually results in leg length discrepancy, angular deformity, or both [1, 7]. The amount of displacement is calculated as follows: grade 1, <1/3 of the bone diameter; grade 2, 1/3 to 2/3 of the bone diameter; grade 3, >2/3 of the bone diameter; grade 4, comminuted fractures . Growth disturbance in the extremely displaced and nondisplaced fractures was reported at 65% and 31%, respectively . Significant impact of the amount of displacement on the development of complications has been demonstrated statistically [1, 2]. There is a correlation between poor outcomes and age, in that undesirable outcomes after distal femoral physeal fractures are more common in younger patients [2, 8, 9].
The ossification center of the proximal tibial epiphysis appears between postnatal months one and three, and it enlarges to the periphery irregularly. Tuberositas tibia appears as an extension of the proximal tibial epiphysis at the 13th gestational week and, at approximately eight years of age, a second ossification centre develops distal to the tibia. When the adolescent is nearly 17 years old, these two ossification centers fuse. The proximal tibial physis contributes 55% of the length of the tibia, and 25% of the entire length of the lower extremity (5,10). Since the proximal tibia does not have any insertion point for ligaments, it is not exposed to varus or valgus stresses exerted via ligaments, and consequently proximal tibial epiphyseal fractures are very rarely seen entities, constituting only 0.5% of all epiphyseal fractures [5, 10–12]. They frequently occur after a violent trauma, and especially in boys aged 12 to 14 years [10, 11]. Usually, SH type 2 injuries are observed [5, 12]. Among its many complications, angular deformity in the form of genu recurvatum and relative asymmetric shortness of the affected extremity as a result of earlier closure of the growth plate are mostly seen [10, 11]. The popliteal artery courses near the proximal tibial epiphysis, and so it can be traumatized especially due to impingement of the distal fragment of the fractured bone .
The management of these fractures consists of closed reduction and application of an above-the-knee cast in SH types 1 and 2 injuries. However, if a closed reduction is impossible or the fracture is unstable, surgical treatment is indicated. For SH type 3 and 4 fractures open reduction and internal fixation is recommended. Since arterial occlusion is the most threatening complication of these interventions, arterial circulation should always be checked carefully after the reduction.
Although distal femoral and proximal tibial growth plate injuries are rarely seen benign fractures, their management requires meticulous care. Anatomic reduction is important, especially to minimize the risk of growth arrest and the development of degenerative arthritis. The patient and his/her next-of-kin should be informed about the potential limb length discrepancy, and/or angular deformities that might happen in the future. A CT scan evaluation is essential for recognition of the fracture pattern and preoperative planning. These patients should be followed up until their skeletal maturity is complete.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient’s next-of-kin for publication of this manuscript and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
- Arkader A, Warner WC, Horn BD, Shaw RN, Wells L: Predicting the outcome of physeal fractures of the distal femur. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007, 27: 703-708. 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3180dca0e5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Basener CJ, Mehlman CT, DiPasquale TG: Growth disturbance after distal femoral growth plate fractures in children: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009, 23: 663-667. 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181a4f25b.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Garrett BR, Hoffman EB, Carrara H: The effect of percutaneous pin fixation in the treatment of distal femoral physeal fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011, 93: 689-694.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Masquijo J, Allende V: Triplane fracture of the distal femur: a case report. J Pediatr Orthop. 2011, 31: e60-e63. 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318221096b.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beaty JH, Kumar A: Fractures about the knee in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994, 76: 1870-1880.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lombardo SJ, Harvey JP: Fractures of the distal femoral epiphyses. Factors influencing prognosis: a review of thirty-four cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977, 59: 742-751.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lippert WC, Owens RF, Wall EJ: Salter-Harris type III fractures of the distal femur: plain radiographs can be deceptive. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010, 30: 598-605. 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181e4f55b.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Riseborough EJ, Barrett IR, Shapiro F: Growth disturbances following distal femoral physeal fracture-separations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983, 65: 885-893.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stephens DC, Louis E, Louis DS: Traumatic separation of the distal femoral epiphyseal cartilage plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974, 56: 1383-1390.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen LC, Chan YS, Wang CJ: Opening-wedge osteotomy, allografting with dual buttress plate fixation for severe genu recurvatum caused by partial growth arrest of the proximal tibial physis: a case report. J Orthop Trauma. 2004, 18: 384-387. 10.1097/00005131-200407000-00010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Burkhart SS, Peterson HA: Fractures of the proximal tibial epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979, 61: 996-1002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Patari SK, Lee FY, Behrens FF: Coronal split fracture of the proximal tibia epiphysis through a partially closed physis: a new fracture pattern. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001, 21: 451-455.PubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.