Lower limb deformity following proximal tibia physeal injury: long-term follow-up

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Table 1 Data on the 7 patients that were available for long-term follow-up

Injury type (Salter–Harris classification)	Patient	Concurrent injuries	Treatment	Initial deformity (4–6 months post-injury)		Mid-term deformity (2.5–3 years post-injury)		Final follow-up (years)^a
Injury type (Salter–Harris classification)	Patient	Concurrent injuries	Treatment	Axial disturbance	Length disturbance	Axial disturbance	Length disturbance	Final follow-up (years)^a
II	1	None	Conservative	0°	0 mm	0°	0 mm	13.8
	2	None	Conservative	4° valgus	0 mm	0°	0 mm	22.0
	3	None	Conservative	2° valgus	0 mm	0°	0 mm	15.0
	4	None	Conservative	3° varus	0 mm	0°	0 mm	12.6
III	5	Tibial tubercle fracture	Operative	3° varus	0 mm	0°	0 mm	13.5
III	6	Intercondylar eminence fracture	Conservative and operative^b	8° varus	0 mm	0°	0 mm	12.9
V^c	7	None	Operative, 1 year post-injury	8.5° varus	6 mm shortening	2° varus	0 mm^d	11.2

^aNo difference was observed in any patient in terms of axial and length deformity between the mid-term and final evaluation. ^b The operation was performed 1 year post-injury, after the varus injury had developed. ^c The patient did not receive treatment initially; he presented 1 year post-injury with an established deformity and he was operated on. ^d Measurement was performed 4 years post-operatively