Distal Femoral Physeal Fixation: Are Smooth Pins Really Safe?

Background: Distal femoral physeal fractures have a high incidence of physeal arrest. Several factors have been postulated to contribute to this high incidence, including fracture type, displacement, the undulating nature of the physis, and fracture reduction/fixation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the position of percutaneous smooth pins across the physis contributes to physeal bar formation. Methods: The previously validated New Zealand white rabbit model was used. Power analysis determined that 30 animals were required. All animals had a constant 0.045 smooth Kirschner (K) wire placed under fluoroscopic guidance from the distal lateral femur across the physis centrally. A second 0.045 K-wire was placed in a cross-pin configuration from the medial side in one of 2 positions: zone 1—crossing the physis centrally or zone 2—crossing the physis peripherally. Pins were removed after 4 weeks and micro computed tomography was performed at 8 weeks to assess for physeal bar formation. Histologic analysis was performed to confirm bar formation. Results: Two physeal bars (7%) were seen after removal of the constant (lateral pin). The peripheral pin resulted in bar formation in 2 animals (13%) and the central pin in 1 animal (7%). A &khgr;2 test was performed; there was no statistically significant difference between zones in terms of bar formation (P=0.5428). Conclusions: Injury to the growth plate after distal femoral fracture may be unavoidable. Treatment is aimed to minimize further injury to the physis. Cross-pinning with smooth K-wires results in a low rate of physeal injury. Pins that cross the physis both centrally and peripherally appear to have the same risk for physeal bar formation. Clinical Relevance: This study reveals that physeal bar formation can be seen with smaller than previously reported cross-sectional damage to the distal femoral physis. This study highlights the need to carefully select and perform fixation of the distal femoral physis with as little additional trauma to the physis as possible.

[1]  M. Williams,et al.  Fractures of the distal femoral epiphyseal plate. , 1995, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[2]  K Bose,et al.  Management of Partial Growth Arrest: Physis, Fat, or Silastic? , 1993, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[3]  R Madhok,et al.  Physeal fractures: Part 1. Epidemiology in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1979-1988. , 1994, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[4]  R. Siffert The effect of staples and longitudinal wires on epiphyseal growth; an experimental study. , 1956, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  D C Mann,et al.  Distribution of Physeal and Nonphyseal Fractures in 2,650 Long‐Bone Fractures in Children Aged 0–16 Years , 1990, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[6]  M. Andrews,et al.  Anterior Cruciate Ligament Allograft Reconstruction in the Skeletally Immature Athlete , 1994, The American journal of sports medicine.

[7]  C. Fabbriciani,et al.  The effect of intra-articular ACL reconstruction on the growth plates of rabbits. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[8]  L. Wells,et al.  Predicting the Outcome of Physeal Fractures of the Distal Femur , 2007, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[9]  E. Guerado,et al.  Growth-plate modifications after drilling. , 1994, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[10]  G Hirsch,et al.  The influence of transphyseal drilling and tendon grafting on bone growth: an experimental study in the rabbit. , 1998, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.