Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Children's Orthopaedics 6/2008

01-12-2008 | Current Concept Review

Lower-limb growth: how predictable are predictions?

Authors: Paula M. Kelly, Alain Diméglio

Published in: Journal of Children's Orthopaedics | Issue 6/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this review is to clarify the different methods of predictions for growth of the lower limb and to propose a simplified method to calculate the final limb deficit and the correct timing of epiphysiodesis.

Background

Lower-limb growth is characterized by four different periods: antenatal growth (exponential); birth to 5 years (rapid growth); 5 years to puberty (stable growth); and puberty, which is the final growth spurt characterized by a rapid acceleration phase lasting 1 year followed by a more gradual deceleration phase lasting 1.5 years. The younger the child, the less precise is the prediction. Repeating measurements can increase the accuracy of predictions and those calculated at the beginning of puberty are the most accurate. The challenge is to reduce the margin of uncertainty. Confrontation of the different parameters—bone age, Tanner signs, annual growth velocity of the standing height, sub-ischial length and sitting height—is the most accurate method. Charts and diagrams are only models and templates. There are many mathematical equations in the literature; we must be able to step back from these rigid calculations because they are a false guarantee. The dynamic of growth needs a flexible approach. There are, however, some rules of thumb that may be helpful for different clinical scenarios.

Calculation of limb length discrepancy

For congenital malformations, at birth the limb length discrepancy must be multiplied by 5 to give the final limb length discrepancy. Multiple by 3 at 1 year of age; by 2 at 3 years in girls and 4 years in boys; by 1.5 at 7 years in girls and boys, by 1.2 at 9 years in girls and 11 years in boys and by 1.1 at the onset of puberty (11 years bone age for girls and 13 years bone age for boys).

Timing of epiphysiodesis

For the timing of epiphysiodesis, several simple principles must be observed to reduce the margin of error; strict and repeated measurements, rigorous analysis of the data obtained, perfect evaluation of bone age with elbow plus hand radiographs and confirmation with Tanner signs. The decision should always be taken at the beginning of puberty. A simple rule is that, at the beginning of puberty, there is an average of 5 cm growth remaining at the knee. There are four common different scenarios: (1) A 5-cm discrepancy—epiphysiodesis of both femur and tibia at the beginning of puberty (11 years bone age girls and 13 years in boys). (2) A 4-cm discrepancy—epiphysiodesis of femur and tibia 6 months after the onset of puberty (11 years 6 months bone age girls, 13 years 6 months bone age boys, tri-radiate cartilage open). (3) A 3-cm discrepancy—epiphysiodesis of femur only at the start of puberty, (skeletal age of 11 years in girls and 13 years in boys). (4) A 2-cm discrepancy—epiphysiodesis of femur only, 1 year after the start of puberty (12 years bone age girls and 14 years in boys).
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dimeglio A (1987) La coissance en orthopedie. Sauramps, Montpellier Dimeglio A (1987) La coissance en orthopedie. Sauramps, Montpellier
3.
go back to reference Snijders RJ, Nicolaides K (1994) Fetal biometry at 14–40 weeks gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 4(1):34–48CrossRef Snijders RJ, Nicolaides K (1994) Fetal biometry at 14–40 weeks gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 4(1):34–48CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S (1994) Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:132–135CrossRef Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S (1994) Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:132–135CrossRef
6.
go back to reference O’Brien GD, Queenan JT (1981) Growth of the ultrasound fetal femur length during normal pregnancy. Part 1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 141:833–837 O’Brien GD, Queenan JT (1981) Growth of the ultrasound fetal femur length during normal pregnancy. Part 1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 141:833–837
7.
go back to reference Shapiro F (1982) Developmental patterns in lower-extremity discrepancies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(5):639–651 Shapiro F (1982) Developmental patterns in lower-extremity discrepancies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(5):639–651
8.
go back to reference Anderson M, Green WT, Messner MB (1963) Growth and predictions of growth in the lower extremities. J Bone Joint Surg Am 45-A:1–14 Anderson M, Green WT, Messner MB (1963) Growth and predictions of growth in the lower extremities. J Bone Joint Surg Am 45-A:1–14
9.
go back to reference Menelaus MB (1966) Correction of leg length discrepancy by epiphyseal arrest. J Bone Joint Surg Br 48(2):336–339 Menelaus MB (1966) Correction of leg length discrepancy by epiphyseal arrest. J Bone Joint Surg Br 48(2):336–339
10.
go back to reference Moseley CF (1977) A straight-line graph for leg-length discrepancies. J Bone Joint Surg 59(2):174–179 Moseley CF (1977) A straight-line graph for leg-length discrepancies. J Bone Joint Surg 59(2):174–179
11.
go back to reference Paley D, Bhave A, Herzenberg JE, Bowen JR (2000) Multiplier method for predicting limb-length discrepancy. J Bone Joint Surg 82-A(10):1432–1446 Paley D, Bhave A, Herzenberg JE, Bowen JR (2000) Multiplier method for predicting limb-length discrepancy. J Bone Joint Surg 82-A(10):1432–1446
12.
go back to reference Lefort J (1981) Utilization of a coefficient of residual growth in prediction of lower limb discrepancies (author’s transl). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 67(8):753–756 Lefort J (1981) Utilization of a coefficient of residual growth in prediction of lower limb discrepancies (author’s transl). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 67(8):753–756
13.
go back to reference Filipe G, Bercovy M, Carlioz H (1978) Epiphysiodesis in the treatment of discrepancies in length of the lower extremities (author’s translation). Chir Pediatr 19(4):227–231 Filipe G, Bercovy M, Carlioz H (1978) Epiphysiodesis in the treatment of discrepancies in length of the lower extremities (author’s translation). Chir Pediatr 19(4):227–231
14.
go back to reference Paley J, Gelman A, Paley D, Herzenberg J (2005) The prenatal multiplier for prediction of limb length discrepancy. Prenat Diagn 25(6):435–438CrossRef Paley J, Gelman A, Paley D, Herzenberg J (2005) The prenatal multiplier for prediction of limb length discrepancy. Prenat Diagn 25(6):435–438CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dimeglio A, Charles YP, Daures JP, De Rossa V, Kabore B (2005) Accuracy of the sauvegrain method in determining skeletal age during puberty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1689–1696. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02418CrossRef Dimeglio A, Charles YP, Daures JP, De Rossa V, Kabore B (2005) Accuracy of the sauvegrain method in determining skeletal age during puberty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1689–1696. doi:10.​2106/​JBJS.​D.​02418CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Charles YP, Canavese F, Dimeglio A (2005) Skeletal age determination from the elbow during pubertal growth. Orthopade 34(10):1052–1053, 1055–1057, 1059–1060 Charles YP, Canavese F, Dimeglio A (2005) Skeletal age determination from the elbow during pubertal growth. Orthopade 34(10):1052–1053, 1055–1057, 1059–1060
19.
go back to reference Tanner J (1978) Physical growth and development. In: Forfar JO, Arneil GC (eds) Textbook of paediatrics, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, New York, p 249 Tanner J (1978) Physical growth and development. In: Forfar JO, Arneil GC (eds) Textbook of paediatrics, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, New York, p 249
20.
go back to reference Dewaele J, Fabry G (1992) The timing of epiphysiodesis. A comparative study between the use of the method of Anderson and Green and the Moseley chart. Acta Orthop Belg 58:43–47 Dewaele J, Fabry G (1992) The timing of epiphysiodesis. A comparative study between the use of the method of Anderson and Green and the Moseley chart. Acta Orthop Belg 58:43–47
21.
go back to reference Porat S, Peyser A, Robin GC (1991) Equalization of lower limbs by epiphysiodesis: results of treatment. J Pediatr Orthop 11:442–448CrossRef Porat S, Peyser A, Robin GC (1991) Equalization of lower limbs by epiphysiodesis: results of treatment. J Pediatr Orthop 11:442–448CrossRef
23.
go back to reference White JW, Stubbins SG (1944) Growth arrest for equalizing leg lengths. JAMA 126:1146CrossRef White JW, Stubbins SG (1944) Growth arrest for equalizing leg lengths. JAMA 126:1146CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Morrissy RT, Weinstein S (2001) Lovell and Winter’s pediatric orthopaedics, 6th edn., vol 1, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1545 Morrissy RT, Weinstein S (2001) Lovell and Winter’s pediatric orthopaedics, 6th edn., vol 1, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1545
Metadata
Title
Lower-limb growth: how predictable are predictions?
Authors
Paula M. Kelly
Alain Diméglio
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Children's Orthopaedics / Issue 6/2008
Print ISSN: 1863-2521
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2548
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-008-0119-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2008

Journal of Children's Orthopaedics 6/2008 Go to the issue