A knee-joint-preserving osteotomy can provide satisfactory results in active patients with painful posttraumatic lateral depression and valgus malunion of the proximal part of the tibia.
General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
Download date: 11 May 2018The PDF of the article you requested follows this cover page. The original scientific article in which the surgical technique was presented was published in JBJS Vol. 90-A, pp. 1252-7, June 2008 DISCLOSURE: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from the AO-ASIF Research Foundation. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity.
This is an enhanced PDF fromABSTRACT FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE BACKGROUND: Reconstructive surgical measures for treatment of posttraumatic deformities of the lateral tibial plateau are seldom reported on in the literature. We report the long-term follow-up results of a consecutive series of reconstructive osteotomies performed to treat depression and valgus malunions of the proximal part of the tibia.
Study Design.
Retrospective comparative cohort.
Objective.
The aim of this study was to determine whether spinal growth is restricted by brace treatment in patients with juvenile idiopathic scoliosis (JIS).
Summary of Background Data.
Spinal fusion can negatively affect spinal growth if performed before the growth spurt. Brace treatment is often given in this young population to control the spinal deformity while allowing spinal growth. It is unknown whether the applied pressure of brace treatment on spine results in growth restriction. The aim of the study is to evaluate spinal growth in braced JIS patients.
Methods.
A total of 49 JIS patients treated with Boston brace were retrospectively selected from a scoliosis database. T1-T12/T1-S1 perpendicular and freehand (height following the curvature of the spine) height were measured on radiographs of patients that had reached skeletal maturity and were matched with 49 controls without scoliosis. Spinal growth was calculated from brace initiation until cessation and was compared with normal spinal growth values as reported by Dimeglio.
Results.
The mean age of diagnosis was 7.4 years. The age of the braced scoliosis patients at skeletal maturity was 17.5 years. The average T1-T12 and T1-S1 freehand height measured by following the curvature of the scoliosis was 29.3 cm (±2.4) and 47.2cm (±4.0), respectively, and was not significant different from the control group. Brace treatment was initiated at a mean age of 11.2 and the mean age of cessation was 14.8. Spinal growth (freehand) during brace treatment was 1.10 cm/year for the thoracic spine and 1.78 cm/year for the full spine and was not significant different from normal values.
Conclusion.
No significant influence of bracing on spinal growth could be detected in this cohort of JIS patients. The spinal height measurements at skeletal maturity were similar to matched controls. In addition, spinal growth did not significantly differ from Dimeglio normal growth data, indicating that the effect of bracing on spinal growth is absent or minimal.
Level of Evidence: 3
IntroductionThe most common surgical treatment of traumatic spine fractures is through a posterior approach using pedicle screws and rods. Postoperative treatment protocols including the use of postoperative orthoses however differ between hospitals and surgeons. A three-point hyperextension orthosis is designed to support proper posture and unload the anterior column. Some motion remains when wearing an orthosis, and its main value in postoperative treatment is therefore believed to be pain relief and patient confidence. This could consequently shorten recovery time. On the other hand, an orthosis could also lead to muscle weakness and slow down recovery. Any orthosis-related complications might also be avoided. Additionally, recent studies on conservative fracture treatment show no difference in radiological outcomes with or without an orthosis. To date, no randomised studies have been performed on the use of postoperative orthoses.Methods and analysisPatients undergoing posterior fixation with pedicle screws for a traumatic thoracolumbar fracture (T7–L4) will be included in this randomised controlled multicentre non-inferiority trial. Forty-six patients will be randomised 1:1 to one of the two parallel groups; one group will wear a postoperative orthosis for 6 weeks followed by 6 weeks of weaning and one group will not wear an orthosis. The primary outcome is pain at 6 weeks reported on the Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes consist of pain on other moments, analgesic use, complications and length of hospital stay, quality of life (EuroQuol 5 Dimensions), back pain-related function (Oswestry Disability Index) and radiological outcomes with a follow-up of 1 year. Orthosis compliance is monitored weekly in the orthosis group.Ethics and disseminationThe institutional review board (METc VUmc) approved this study on 11 October 2016 under case number 2016.389. After completion of the trial, the results will be offered to an international scientific journal for peer-reviewed publication.Trial registration number
NCT03097081 and NTR6285; Pre-results.
We have read with great interest the article by Minsk et al. in Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders. However, the authors reported a conclusion that is based on possible selection bias in surgical candidates. Physicians are trained in the interpretation of scientific articles; however, not everybody is able to do this. Especially in open access journals, a biased conclusion may have big consequences and may be misleading for patients and family members who can read these articles for free on the internet.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.