Tibial Bowing Treatment & Management

  • Author: James J McCarthy, MD, FAAOS, FAAP; Chief Editor: Carlos J Lavernia, MD, FAAOS   more...
 
Updated: Feb 6, 2012
 

Medical Therapy

Currently, no medical therapies exist for limb-length inequality. Nonsurgical treatment includes stretching, serial casting, or splinting. This should be initiated at birth. If significant correction is not obtained by age 4-6 weeks, question the diagnosis; the possibility of a more serious foot deformity, such as a vertical talus, must be ruled out radiographically. After the foot has fully corrected, a splint can be made to maintain correction until age 12-24 months. Bracing of the bowing deformity has been suggested, but it is not currently believed to significantly alter the natural history.[31]

Most children with posteromedial tibial bowing have a limb-length inequality averaging 3 cm, but this can vary from about 2 to 6 cm. Typically, a limb-length inequality of 2 cm or less is not a functional problem. Often, limb length can be equalized with a shoe lift. About two thirds of limb-length inequalities are corrected with a lift; up to 1 cm can be inserted in the shoe. Larger limb-length inequalities require the shoe to be built up. This is necessary for every shoe worn and limits the type of shoe that the patient can wear.

Limb-length inequalities of more than 5 cm are difficult to treat with a shoe lift. The shoe looks unsightly, and often the patient complains of instability with such a large lift. A foot-in-foot prosthesis can be used for larger limb-length inequalities. This is often a temporizing measure for very young children with significant limb-length inequalities. The prosthesis is bulky, and a fixed equinus contracture may result.

Next

Surgical Therapy

The type of surgical treatment depends on the degree of projected limb-length inequality at skeletal maturity. Epiphysiodesis is a reliable procedure that inhibits growth with few complications. This cannot be performed on patients who are skeletally mature, and the final limb-length inequality and the degree of growth inhibition must be predicted and are subject to error. In addition, epiphysiodesis effectively shortens the longer leg and is a procedure that is usually performed on the uninvolved side, both of which may be unappealing to the patient and family. Typically, predicted limb-length inequalities of 2-6 cm can be corrected with an appropriately timed epiphysiodesis.[32, 33]

Lengthening is usually performed with corticotomy and gradual distraction. This technique can result in an increase of 25% or more in bone length, but, typically, a lengthening of 15% (or about 6 cm) is recommended. The limits of lengthening depend on patient tolerance, bony consolidation, maintenance of joint range of motion, and stability of the joints above and below the lengthened limb.[34, 35, 36]

Previous
Next

Preoperative Details

Predicted limb-length inequality at skeletal maturity must be carefully assessed, and the effect of the given procedure on future growth must be estimated. Estimated height is also important, especially with a large limb-length inequality, because this may determine if an epiphysiodesis or lengthening should be performed. Preoperative teaching is important, especially for lengthening procedures that can last several months and require a great deal of tolerance and cooperation from the patient and family. The bone is typically lengthened about 1 mm/day, after a 7-10 day latency period. The total time in the fixator is about 1 month per 1 cm (10 mm) of lengthening and includes both the time to lengthen and time for the bone to consolidate and become strong enough to bear weight.

Previous
Next

Intraoperative Details

Numerous fixation devices are available for lengthening, such as the ring fixator with fine wires, monolateral fixator with half pins, and the hybrid frame. The choice of fixation device depends on the desired goal.[37, 38] A monolateral device is easier to apply and is better tolerated by the patient. The disadvantages of monolateral fixation devices include the following: limitation of the degree of angular correction that can be obtained concurrently; the cantilever effect on the pins, which may result in angular deformity, especially when lengthening the femur in large patients; and adjustments are difficult to make without placing new pins. Monolateral fixators and circular fixators appear to have similar success rates, especially with more modest lengthenings of 20% or less.

Previous
Next

Postoperative Details

Postoperative care is minimal for patients who have an epiphysiodesis. Knee range of motion (ROM) should be monitored.[39, 40] Full extension and 90° of flexion should be obtained by 2 weeks after surgery. Weightbearing can begin immediately, and the patient can return to sports at 6-12 weeks.

Postoperative care for patients undergoing lengthening with an external fixator is quite demanding. Lengthening begins 5-7 days postoperatively and continues at 1 mm/d until the desired length is obtained. Careful assessment of the joints adjacent to the fixator is mandatory in order to assess for ROM and joint subluxation.

Previous
Next

Follow-up

Continued monitoring of limb-length inequality is needed for patients undergoing an epiphysiodesis. An orthoroentgenogram or scanogram should be taken every 6 months until skeletal maturity. The expected goal is limb-length equality within 1 cm at skeletal maturity.

For patients undergoing limb lengthening, the fixator can sometimes be removed in an outpatient setting, but usually these devices are removed with the patient under sedation.

Previous
Next

Complications

Epiphysiodesis has been reported to result in physeal closure in 85-100% of patients with few complications. In the author's review,[41] of 44 patients who underwent proximal tibial epiphysiodesis, no complications occurred, although lack of growth inhibition, angular deformity, and knee stiffness can occur.[42]

Numerous complications can occur when performing limb-lengthening procedures, even in experienced hands.[43] Complication rates vary significantly among reported studies and seem to depend on the degree of lengthening, definition of complication, and the surgeon's experience. Complication rates from most series, including that of the authors,[41, 44] are about 1 per procedure, and many of these require operative treatment. Fortunately, the ultimate objective can usually still be obtained.

The most common complication is pin-site infection. Depending on how this complication is diagnosed, treated, and reported, it may occur in nearly every patient. Numerous pin-care protocols have been developed. Some authors are demonstrating good success with a shower regimen after the incisions have healed. This author uses this regimen in combination with standard cleaning of the pin sites and oral antibiotics if excessive discharge, redness, or swelling is present. Periosteal reaction occurs around the pin sites in most patients, and this may be an early indication of loosening.

Newer pins, coated with hydroxyapatite, have improved fixation to bone and may reduce the rate of infection and loosening during external fixation for distraction osteogenesis. Use of hydroxyapatite-coated pins should be considered in clinical situations requiring prolonged external fixation.

Knee ROM decreases uniformly in femoral lengthening by an average of 37°, but at follow-up, the mean loss in ROM is usually minimal.

Other, more ominous complications include fracture, osteomyelitis, and joint subluxation. The incidence of these more serious complications is about 25% with an experienced surgeon.

Less commonly considered effects of limb lengthening include muscle weakness, pain, and possible physeal inhibition. The last effect is extremely important if lengthening procedures are planned for younger patients with an open physis. Some reports, including this author's,[41] found little difference in prelengthening and postlengthening growth velocities, indicating little effect of lengthening on the adjacent growth plates (with moderate lengthenings). Other reports have found growth inhibition, especially in the tibia and in children after extensive lengthening procedures (> 30%).[45]

Unlike pain associated with conventional surgery, pain with lengthening seems to continue beyond the postoperative period and through the lengthening and consolidation phases, until the fixator is removed.

The use of somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) monitoring may be helpful in preventing neurologic injuries, especially of the peroneal nerve. The use of ultrasound,[46] electrical stimulation,[47] or both, while not routinely prescribed, may decrease the time to consolidation.

Previous
Next

Outcome and Prognosis

Although the angulation and foot deformity associated with posteromedial bowing improve dramatically, some deformity, including tibial torsion and muscle atrophy, often remains. This is usually not a significant disability.

Previous
Next

Future and Controversies

Experimental methods of producing lengthening, such as cultured chondrocytes transfer, vascular surgery,[48] and periosteal sleeve resection,[49] are being studied.

Previous
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

James J McCarthy, MD, FAAOS, FAAP  Director, Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital; Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

James J McCarthy, MD, FAAOS, FAAP is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Orthopaedic Association, Limb Lengthening and Reconstruction Society ASAMI-North America, Orthopaedics Overseas, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America, Pennsylvania Medical Society, Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society, and Philadelphia County Medical Society

Disclosure: Fixes-4-kids Ownership interest Consulting; Lippincott Williams and WIcins Royalty Editing textbook; OERHOPEDICS Royalty Editor

Specialty Editor Board

Dennis P Grogan, MD  Clinical Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of South Florida College of Medicine; Chief of Staff, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shriners Hospital for Children of Tampa

Dennis P Grogan, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Orthopaedic Association, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society, Eastern Orthopaedic Association, Irish American Orthopaedic Society, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America, and Scoliosis Research Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD  Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

Thomas M DeBerardino, MD  Associate Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Consulting Surgeon, Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy and Reconstruction of the Knee, Hip and Shoulder, Team Physician, Orthopedic Consultant to UConn Department of Athletics, University of Connecticut Health Center

Thomas M DeBerardino, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Association, and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Disclosure: Arthrex, Inc. Grant/research funds Other; Arthrex, Inc. Consulting fee Speaking and teaching; Genzyme Biosurgery. Inc. Grant/research funds Other; Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation Grant/research funds Other; Histogenics Grant/research funds None

Dinesh Patel, MD, FACS  Associate Clinical Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School; Chief of Arthroscopic Surgery, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital

Dinesh Patel, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Carlos J Lavernia, MD, FAAOS  Adjunct Clinical Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine; Medical Director, Orthopedic Institute at Mercy Hospital

Carlos J Lavernia, MD, FAAOS is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, Arthritis Foundation, Biomedical Engineering Society, Florida Orthopaedic Society, and Orthopaedic Research Society

Disclosure: Zimmer Stock Implant Designer

References
  1. Schoenecker PL, Rich MM. The lower extremity. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;1092-95.

  2. Stevenson DA, Viskochil DH, Schorry EK, Crawford AH, D'Astous J, Murray KA, et al. The use of anterolateral bowing of the lower leg in the diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis type 1. Genet Med. Jul 2007;9(7):409-12. [Medline].

  3. Heyman CH, Herndon CH, Heiple KG. Congenital posterior angulation of the tibia with talipes calcaneus; a long-term report of eleven patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Apr 1959;41-A(3):476-88. [Medline].

  4. Hofmann A, Wenger DR. Posteromedial bowing of the tibia. Progression of discrepancy in leg lengths. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Mar 1981;63(3):384-8. [Medline].

  5. Lemire EG. Congenital anterolateral tibial bowing and polydactyly: a case report. J Med Case Reports. Jul 23 2007;1:54. [Medline].

  6. Phemister D. Operative arrestment of longitudinal growth in the treatment of deformities. J Bone Joint Surg. 1933;15A:1.

  7. Scott AC, Urquhart BA, Cain TE. Percutaneous vs modified phemister epiphysiodesis of the lower extremity. Orthopedics. Oct 1996;19(10):857-61. [Medline].

  8. Gabriel KR, Crawford AH, Roy DR. Percutaneous epiphysiodesis. J Pediatr Orthop. May-Jun 1994;14(3):358-62. [Medline].

  9. Codivilla A. On the means of lengthening, in the lower limbs, the muscles and tissues which are shortened through deformity. 1904. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Apr 1994;4-9. [Medline].

  10. Curran AR, Kuo KN, Lubicky JP. Simultaneous ipsilateral femoral and tibial lengthening with the Ilizarov method. J Pediatr Orthop. May-Jun 1999;19(3):386-90. [Medline].

  11. Young N, Bell DF, Anthony A. Pediatric pain patterns during Ilizarov treatment of limb length discrepancy and angular deformity. J Pediatr Orthop. May-Jun 1994;14(3):352-7. [Medline].

  12. Johari AN, Dhawale AA, Salaskar A, Aroojis AJ. Congenital postero-medial bowing of the tibia and fibula: is early surgery worthwhile?. J Pediatr Orthop B. Nov 2010;19(6):479-86. [Medline].

  13. Alaseirlis DA, Korompilias AV, Beris AE, Soucacos PN. Residual malformations and leg length discrepancy after treatment of fibular hemimelia. J Orthop Surg Res. Sep 27 2011;6:51. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  14. Dawson GR. Intra-uterine fractures of the tibia and fibula. J Bone Joint Surg. 1949;31A:406-8.

  15. Pappas AM. Congenital posteromedial bowing of the tibia and fibula. J Pediatr Orthop. Sep 1984;4(5):525-31. [Medline].

  16. Maffuli N, Fixsen JA. Distraction osteogenesis in congenital limb length discrepancy: a review. J R Coll Surg Edinb. Aug 1996;41(4):258-64. [Medline].

  17. Noonan KJ, Leyes M, Forriol F. Distraction osteogenesis of the lower extremity with use of monolateral external fixation. A study of two hundred and sixty-one femora and tibiae. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jun 1998;80(6):793-806. [Medline].

  18. Viehweger E, Pouliquen JC, Kassis B. Bone growth after lengthening of the lower limb in children. J Pediatr Orthop B. Apr 1998;7(2):154-7. [Medline].

  19. Timperlake RW, Bowen JR, Guille JT. Prospective evaluation of fifty-three consecutive percutaneous epiphysiodeses of the distal femur and proximal tibia and fibula. J Pediatr Orthop. May-Jun 1991;11(3):350-7. [Medline].

  20. Westh RN, Menelaus MB. A simple calculation for the timing of epiphysial arrest: a further report. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Feb 1981;63-B(1):117-9. [Medline].

  21. Sabharwal S, Zhao C, McKeon J, et al. Reliability analysis for radiographic measurement of limb length discrepancy: full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph versus scanogram. J Pediatr Orthop. Jan-Feb 2007;27(1):46-50. [Medline].

  22. Sabharwal S, Zhao C, McKeon JJ, et al. Computed radiographic measurement of limb-length discrepancy. Full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph compared with scanogram. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Oct 2006;88(10):2243-51. [Medline].

  23. Aaron A, Weinstein D, Thickman D. Comparison of orthoroentgenography and computed tomography in the measurement of limb-length discrepancy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jul 1992;74(6):897-902. [Medline].

  24. Minty I, Maffulli N, Hughes TH. Radiographic features of limb lengthening in children. Acta Radiol. Nov 1994;35(6):555-9. [Medline].

  25. Terjesen T, Benum P, Rossvoll I. Leg-length discrepancy measured by ultrasonography. Acta Orthop Scand. Apr 1991;62(2):121-4. [Medline].

  26. Stanitski DF. Limb-length inequality: assessment and treatment options. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. May-Jun 1999;7(3):143-53. [Medline].

  27. Moseley CF. A straight-line graph for leg-length discrepancies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Mar 1977;59(2):174-9. [Medline].

  28. Aguilar JA, Paley D, Paley J, et al. Clinical validation of the multiplier method for predicting limb length discrepancy and outcome of epiphysiodesis, part II. J Pediatr Orthop. Mar-Apr 2005;25(2):192-6. [Medline].

  29. Aguilar JA, Paley D, Paley J, et al. Clinical validation of the multiplier method for predicting limb length at maturity, part I. J Pediatr Orthop. Mar-Apr 2005;25(2):186-91. [Medline].

  30. Paley D, Bhave A, Herzenberg JE. Multiplier method for predicting limb-length discrepancy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Oct 2000;82-A(10):1432-46. [Medline].

  31. Ofluoglu O, Davidson RS, Dormans JP. Prophylactic bypass grafting and long-term bracing in the management of anterolateral bowing of the tibia and neurofibromatosis-1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Oct 2008;90(10):2126-34. [Medline].

  32. Ogilvie JW, King K. Epiphysiodesis: two-year clinical results using a new technique. J Pediatr Orthop. Nov-Dec 1990;10(6):809-11. [Medline].

  33. Porat S, Peyser A, Robin GC. Equalization of lower limbs by epiphysiodesis: results of treatment. J Pediatr Orthop. Jul-Aug 1991;11(4):442-8. [Medline].

  34. Hope PG, Crawfurd EJ, Catterall A. Bone growth following lengthening for congenital shortening of the lower limb. J Pediatr Orthop. May-Jun 1994;14(3):339-42. [Medline].

  35. Karger C, Guille JT, Bowen JR. Lengthening of congenital lower limb deficiencies. Clin Orthop. Jun 1993;(291):236-45. [Medline].

  36. Paley D. Current techniques of limb lengthening. J Pediatr Orthop. Jan-Feb 1988;8(1):73-92. [Medline].

  37. Pommer A, Muhr G, David A. Hydroxyapatite-coated Schanz pins in external fixators used for distraction osteogenesis : a randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jul 2002;84-A(7):1162-6. [Medline].

  38. Siffert RS. The effect of staples and longitudinal wires on epiphyseal growth; an experimental study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Oct 1956;38-A(5):1077-88. [Medline].

  39. Herzenberg JE, Scheufele LL, Paley D. Knee range of motion in isolated femoral lengthening. Clin Orthop. Apr 1994;(301):49-54. [Medline].

  40. Kaljumae U, Martson A, Haviko T. The effect of lengthening of the femur on the extensors of the knee. An electromyographic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Feb 1995;77(2):247-50. [Medline].

  41. McCarthy JJ, Kim H, Saluan P. The effects of limb lengthening on growth. J Pediatr Orthop B. Sep 2003;12(5):328-31. [Medline].

  42. Little DG, Nigo L, Aiona MD. Deficiencies of current methods for the timing of epiphysiodesis. J Pediatr Orthop. Mar-Apr 1996;16(2):173-9. [Medline].

  43. Dahl MT, Gulli B, Berg T. Complications of limb lengthening. A learning curve. Clin Orthop. Apr 1994;(301):10-8. [Medline].

  44. McCarthy JJ, Glancy GL, Chnag FM. Fibular hemimelia: comparison of outcome measurments after amputation and lengthening. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Dec 2000;82-A(12):1732-5. [Medline].

  45. Sharma M, MacKenzie WG, Bowen JR. Severe tibial growth retardation in total fibular hemimelia after limb lengthening. J Pediatr Orthop. Jul-Aug 1996;16(4):438-44. [Medline].

  46. Ehrlich MG, Eberson C, Hogan K. The effect of low intensity ultrasound stimulation on consolidation of the regenerate zone in a rat model of distraction osteogenesis. Presented at: Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North. America; May 2000;Vancouver, BC, Canada.

  47. Makarov MR, Delgado MR, Birch JG. Intraoperative SSEP monitoring during external fixation procedures in the lower extremities. J Pediatr Orthop. Mar-Apr 1996;16(2):155-60. [Medline].

  48. Belov S. Correction of lower limbs length discrepancy in congenital vascular- bone diseases by vascular surgery performed during childhood. Semin Vasc Surg. Dec 1993;6(4):245-51. [Medline].

  49. D'Souza H, Shah NM. Circumferential periosteal sleeve resection: results in limb-length discrepancy secondary to poliomyelitis. J Pediatr Orthop. Mar-Apr 1999;19(2):215-21. [Medline].

Previous
Next
 
Anteroposterior radiograph of a 1-year-old child with posteromedial tibial bowing.
Lateral radiograph of a 1-year-old child with posteromedial tibial bowing.
Anteroposterior and lateral radiograph of a 9-year-old child with posteromedial tibial bowing. Note that the bowing has significantly improved.
Posteromedial tibial bowing. The Galeazzi test. Note the difference in the height of the flexed knees.
Scanogram of a patient with posteromedial tibial bowing and a limb-length inequality.
A hydroxyapatite-coated Schanz pin used to secure external fixator devices to the bone.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.