Article

Fractures of the proximal tibial epiphysis.

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.31). 11/1979; 61(7):996-1002.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fractures of the proximal tibial epiphysis are rare. A series of twenty-eight fractures classified according to the Salter-Harris method showed that nine were Type II and eight, Type IV. Lawn-mower injuries, a previously unreported mode of injury for this fracture, caused five of the eight Type-IV fractures and were associated with the worst prognosis by far. Two Type-V fractures in the proximal tibial epiphysis, previously unreported, are described.

0 Followers
 · 
187 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We report a very rare case of a 16-year-old healthy athletic boy who sustained simultaneous bilateral transitional fractures of the proximal tibia after kicking a football with his right leg during a soccer game. Following minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis with bridging of the growth plate, the patient recovered rapidly without any growth disturbances.
    01/2013; 2013:724802. DOI:10.1155/2013/724802
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a prospective study of ankle fractures in children, the posttraumatic growth pattern was registered with a roentgen stereophotogrammetric technique. This method allows determination of growth rates within 3 months after fracture, and the prognosis for future growth can be determined within 6-8 months after fracture. The ankle fractures were classified anatomically according to Salter-Harris and traumatologically according to Gerner-Smidt. Nine cases were classified as due to pronation: two pronation-abduction injuries and seven pronation-eversion injuries. The pronation-abduction injuries had Salter-Harris type I injury in distal fibula and tibia, respectively, and showed initial growth stimulation and symmetric growth. The pronation-eversion injuries had a Salter-Harris type II injury in distal tibia and showed three types of growth pattern: initial growth stimulation (3 cases), growth arrest (2 cases), and progressive growth retardation (1 case), besides one case with no significant growth registered bilaterally. Asymmetric growth within the growth region was found in four cases; in three mainly as a varus position, in one mainly as antecurvation of the ankle joint. In conclusion, the pronation-abduction injuries showed growth stimulation, whereas the older showed progressive growth retardation or growth arrest.
    Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 01/1983; 53(6):1001-11. DOI:10.3109/17453678208992861
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sleeve avulsion fractures of the patella are a well-recognized fracture pattern in children. Less appreciated is a similar fracture pattern involving the anterior metaphyseal area of the tibia. These metaphyseal sleeve fractures represent a fracture pattern characterized by the avulsion of a large area of periosteal attachment of the patellar tendon associated with small subchondral fragments of bone, encountered in skeletally immature children secondary to contraction of the quadriceps associated with forced knee flexion. Although an avulsion fracture of the tibial tubercle is the usual result of this type of trauma, partial sleeve avulsion fractures of the tibial apophysis and adjacent metaphysis occasionally occur and have not been adequately described. It was the authors' purpose to describe their experience with this fracture pattern. Since 1998, three boys have presented to a major pediatric trauma center with a partial sleeve fracture of the tibia. The average age was 13 years 6 months (range 10 years 3 months to 15 years 3 months). Follow-up ranged from 1 year 5 months to 2 years 3 months, with an average of 1 year 9 months. All three boys were treated with open reduction and internal fixation with small cancellous screws and postoperative plaster immobilization. At the time of most recent follow-up, each child showed full range of knee motion and had returned to all sports activities.
    Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics 01/2002; 22(1):36-40. DOI:10.1097/01241398-200201000-00009 · 1.43 Impact Factor