Search

Introduction: The current standard of care for measuring lower extremity length and angular discrepancies is using a full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph. However, there has been increasing interest to use biplanar linear EOS imaging as an alternative. This study aims to compare lower extremity length and implant measurements between biplanar linear and conventional radiographs., Materials and Methods: In this 5-year retrospective study, all patients who had a standing full-length anteroposterior and biplanar linear radiographs (EOS®) that include the lower extremities done within one year of each other were included. Patients who underwent surgery in between the imaging, underwent surgeries that could result in graduated length or angulated corrections and inadequate exposure of the lower extremity were excluded. Four radiographic segments were measured to assess lower limb alignment and length measurements. Height and width measurements of implants were performed for patients who had implants in both imaging., Results: When comparing imaging and actual implant dimensions, biplanar linear radiographs were accurate in measuring actual implant height (median difference = - 0.14 cm, p = 0.66), and width (median difference = - 0.13 cm, p = 0.71). However, conventional radiographs were inaccurate in measuring actual implant height (median difference = 0.19 cm, p = 0.01) and width (median difference = 0.61 cm, p < 0.01). When comparing conventional and biplanar linear radiographs, there was statistically significant difference in all measurements. This includes anatomical femoral length (median difference = 3.53 cm, p < 0.01), mechanical femoral length (median difference = 3.89 cm, p < 0.01), anatomical tibial length (median difference = 2.34 cm, p < 0.01) and mechanical tibial length (median difference = 2.20 cm, p < 0.01)., Conclusion: First, there is a significant difference in the lower extremity length when comparing conventional and biplanar linear radiographs. Second, biplanar linear radiographs are found to be accurate while conventional radiographs are not as accurate in implant measurements of length and width in the lower extremity., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Subtalar arthroereisis has been increasingly accepted as a solution to manage symptomatic pes planus. However, despite the recent developments related to arthroereisis, no other published literature has aimed to review the outcomes in paediatric patients since 2010. This systematic review and meta-analysis, therefore, aims to evaluate the current outcomes of subtalar arthroereisis in the treatment of symptomatic pes planus among the paediatric population., Materials and Methods: The review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies reported on the clinical outcomes of subtalar arthroereisis in children aged 21 or younger were included., Results: A total of 17 publications were included, with 1536 feet. The average duration of follow-up of the studies included in the review is 43.52 months. The studies consistently reported improvement in the radiological outcomes, approximating that of a normal population. Subtalar arthroereisis has shown to restore the collapsed medial longitudinal arch, supported by the decrease in Meary's angle to 5.267° (95% CI: 4.695°-5.839°, normal: 0°-10.0°) post-operatively and an increased calcaneal pitch of 15.70° (95% CI: 15.41°-15.99°, normal 18.0°-20.0°). Deformities associated with pes planus such as heel valgus was also significantly reduced, evident by the post-operative lateral talocalcaneal angle of 27.19° (95% CI: 26.44°-27.93°, normal: 25.0°-45.0°) and a post-operative Kite's angle of 18.13° (95% CI: 17.73°-18.52°, normal: 15.0°-30.0°). Subjectively, subtalar arthroereisis has generally resulted in an improvement in the grading of outcomes postoperatively from the patient's point of view., Conclusions: Subtalar arthroereisis could serve as a procedure to correct radiological abnormalities, as well as relieve pain in selected patients with symptomatic pes planus.

Introduction: Lateral condyle fractures of the humerus are common paediatric fractures. However, no conclusive statement has been made about their risk of complications, the management and epidemiology., Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. All studies with paediatric lateral condyle fracture were included, with 2440 children., Results: Most fractures had union, with 0.9% delayed union, 1.6% non-union and 1.5% malunion. Complications included valgus deformities (6.1%), varus deformities (7.8%), flexion loss (9.7%), extension loss (11.5%), prominent lateral condyle (27.3%), fishtail deformity (14.3%), avascular necrosis (1.7%), premature epiphyseal closure (5.4%) and neurological deficits (10.6%). Risk factors of complications include concomitant ipsilateral upper limb fractures, classification by Milch or Jakob, fracture displacement, fixation device, and inappropriate diagnosis and management., Conclusions: It is recommended for fractures that are non-displaced on all radiographic views to be managed conservatively, while displaced fractures of > 2 mm requires surgical intervention. Minimally displaced fractures could be treated conservatively, though follow-up is recommended to detect displacement. Radiographs are also recommended at 1-week follow-up, with serial radiographs having no clinical significance. Kirschner wires or lag screws could be employed, and it is recommended that the Kirschner wires be left exposed and removed when there is clinical and radiographic evidence of fracture consolidation, typically at the 6-week interval. These fractures need close follow-up.