Skip to main content
padlock icon - secure page this page is secure

Histological differences between various methods of hemiepiphysiodesis: is guided growth really different?

Buy Article:

$52.00 + tax (Refund Policy)

Traditional systems of hemiepiphysiodesis are based on the application of asymmetrical compression to the physis to correct angular deformities. The guided growth method claims to act as a tension plate avoiding compression. The aim of this study was to confirm or refute this claim. Twenty-four White New Zealand rabbits were subjected to a proximal tibial hemiepiphysiodesis using either staples or a plate and two-screws method. Both methods succeeded in producing deformity. The initial existent histological differences between systems became less apparent after 6 weeks of hemiepiphysiodesis, when histological results were very similar. The findings suggest that the eight-plate system produces, like staples, compression of the physis, but the forces are applied more gradually.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: angular deformity; guided growth; hemiepiphysiodesis; histology; physis; stapling

Document Type: Research Article

Affiliations: 1: Departments of Peadiatric Orthopaedics 2: Research Unit, Hospital Universitari Son Espases 3: Morbid Anatomy 4: Experimental Laboratory, Hospital Son Llatzer, Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Publication date: July 1, 2015

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more