Skip to main content
. 2023 Jul 1;5(4):100739. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.04.022

Table 3.

Descriptive Factors Associated With Patients Experiencing Growth Disturbance After Tibial Spine Fracture Treatment

Patient 1 Patient 2 Patient 3 Patient 4 Patient 5 Patient 6 Patient 7 Patient 8 Patient 9
Age, y 12.8 11.1 10.3 6.7 10.8 7.4 9.6 10 8.1
Sex Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Female Male
Follow-up time, mo 17.3 50.3 81.9 115.5 18.0 57.4 9.5 20.7 32.6
Surgical treatment ARIF ORIF ARIF ARIF ARIF ARIF ARIF ARIF ARIF
Fixation: screw or suture (type) Suture Screw and Suture Screw Screw Suture Suture Suture Suture Suture
Placement of screw or suture E N/A E E T T T T E
Type of suture R NR None None R R R NR R
Type of screw None R NR NR None None None None None
LLD, cm +0.9 +1.3 +1.5 +2 +0.5 +1 +0.8 Valgus angular deformity +0.6
Treatment to address growth arrest? None Shoe lift 1/4-in lift 3/8-in lift None None None Proximal medial tibial hemiepiphysiodesis None

ARIF, arthroscopic reduction internal fixation; E, epiphyseal; LLD, leg-length discrepancy; NR, nonresorbable suture or screw, ORIF, open reduction internal fixation; R, resorbable screw/suture, T, transphyseal.

N/A correlates with data not available.