Premature Physeal Closure after a Non-Displaced Physeal Fracture of Distal Fibula

A B S T R A C T

Premature physeal closure (PPC) may lead to clinically significant progressive angular deformity or leg length discrepancy. Many variables seem to play a role in determining which injuries result in PPC. A 8-year-old boy sustained a non-displaced physeal fracture of distal tibia and fibula. He showed no signs of PPC at 7 months post-injury. Seven years later, his ankle became painful. He had developed PPC of distal fibula causing angular ankle deformity, which was treated successfully by corrective osteotomy. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a non-displaced fracture of the distal fibula leading to PPC several years after the initial injury, which in our understanding was impossible to predict.

Keywords

Premature physeal closure, ankle fracture, fibula fracture, pediatric trauma, trauma

Background

Distal tibial and fibular physis are responsible for approximately one-third of the final length of the lower leg producing between 3-5 mm of longitudinal growth per year [1]. Distal tibia physis is the second most common location of physeal fractures [2]. Risk of premature physeal closure (PPC) of the injured distal tibial growth plate has varied between 5-42% [3-7]. The incidence of the physeal injuries of distal fibula and the related risk of PPC is not known. PPC may lead to clinically significant progressive angular deformity or leg length discrepancy depending on its location and extent [8]. After physeal injury has been established, a repeat radiography is recommended every 3 months until normal growth has been documented for at least 6 months [8]. Many variables seem to play a role in determining which injuries result in PPC: Mechanism of injury, trauma energy, fracture pattern and primary and post-reduction displacement [3-6, 9-12].

Case Report

A 8-year-old previously healthy boy injured his ankle from a fall while playing football in July 2008. Bony injuries were not seen on radiographs, but non-displaced Peterson III physeal fractures of the tibia and fibula were suspected (Figure 1a). He was treated with a short leg cast for 5 weeks. His growth plates looked normal in follow-up radiographs 7 months after the injury (Figure 1b). In May 2015, he twisted his ankle during football practice. Prior to this new injury, he had experienced progressive ankle pain but had been able to play football with his ankle taped. Radiographs showed now a total PPC of the fibula and abnormal distal tibial physis and a substantial shortening of the fibula and angular ankle deformity (Figure 1c). He was then referred to our hospital, where a complete fibular PPC and a vertical cavity in the distal tibial physis were diagnosed by a CT scan. His anterior distal tibia angle (ADTA) was abnormal in the lateral part of the tibia, in addition to significant valgus angulation. He had a clinically obvious valgus deformity and instability of his ankle joint.

MRI showed damage of the tibial joint surface, which was verified by arthroscopy (Alter-Bridge level I damage of distal tibial including the medial malleolus). Closing wedge osteotomy of the tibia to correct both the valgus and ADTA and intraoperative 10 mm lengthening of fibula were performed (Figure 1d). ADTA was intentionally slightly under corrected laterally. The patient’s recovery was uneventful (Table 1) and he went back to playing football. His hardware was removed in December 2017. He remained symptomless despite slight instability of his ankle in the frontal plane at the last follow-up.

Table 1: Recovery after corrective surgery of ankle deformity caused by premature physeal closure of distal fibula in a 15-year-old boy 7 years after the injury.

	Examiner	Function
Six weeks	Orthopaedic surgeon	Walks with a limp. Stable ankle.
Two months	Physiotherapist	Does not need pain medication. Walks without crutches. Decreased ankle range of motion.
Four months	Physiotherapist	Normal gait and symmetrical ankle joint range of motion.
Six months	Orthopaedic surgeon	Returned to work and sports 4 months from surgery. No pain. Normal gait, toe- and heel walking.
Eighteen months	Orthopaedic surgeon	Discomfort from hardware. Osteotomy completely healed on radiographs

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a non-displaced Peterson III (SH-I) fracture that developed a significant angular deformity several years after the initial injury. The most significant causative factors of PPC are high trauma energy and fracture displacement [5, 13-15]. Non-displaced Peterson III are believed to be low-risk fractures that are treated in a short leg, non-weight-bearing cast for 4 to 6 weeks [6, 16]. Our patient probably sustained a non-displaced physeal fracture of the distal fibula from a low energy trauma, which led to a premature physeal arrest and significant angular deformity caused by the shortened fibula. We believe that due to fibular PPC traction from the syndesmotic ligaments and interosseous membrane caused the growth disturbance in the distal tibial growth plate.

Early recognition of PPC is important in order to prevent functionally significant deformity. Asymmetric Harris lines can predict PPC already at three months, whereas angular deformity becomes evident later but usually during the first 2 years from the injury [12, 17, 18]. We do not know when our patient’s ankle deformity started to develop since he was discharged at 7 months from the injury when no signs of PPC were seen clinically or on radiographs. We do not arrange further follow-up or imaging studies for asymptomatic patients with open normal looking physis and symmetric Harris lines. PPC might have been diagnosed earlier. Follow-up would have been longer, but it is not reasonable to follow-up on all patients for several years. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of the predictive factors of PPC and follow-up protocols in physeal fractures.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Funding

None.

Article Info

Article Type

Case Report

Publication history

Received: Wed 30, Apr 2031
Accepted: Wed 09, Jun 2021
Published: Wed 30, Jun 2021

Copyright

© 2023 Antti Stenroos. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.SCR.2021.06.08

Author Info

Topi Laaksonen Jussi Kosola Yrjänä Nietosvaara Antti Stenroos

Corresponding Author

Antti Stenroos
Helsinki New Children’s Hospital, University of Helsinki, Finland

Figures & Tables

Table 1: Recovery after corrective surgery of ankle deformity caused by premature physeal closure of distal fibula in a 15-year-old boy 7 years after the injury.

	Examiner	Function
Six weeks	Orthopaedic surgeon	Walks with a limp. Stable ankle.
Two months	Physiotherapist	Does not need pain medication. Walks without crutches. Decreased ankle range of motion.
Four months	Physiotherapist	Normal gait and symmetrical ankle joint range of motion.
Six months	Orthopaedic surgeon	Returned to work and sports 4 months from surgery. No pain. Normal gait, toe- and heel walking.
Eighteen months	Orthopaedic surgeon	Discomfort from hardware. Osteotomy completely healed on radiographs

Figure 1: A 8-year-old boy sustained an ankle injury without radiographic evidence of fractures a) anteroposterior and lateral radiographs at the time of injury, b) 7-months later, c) 7-years later and d) after corrective osteotomy.

References

1.      Dugan G, Herndon WA, McGuire R (1987) Distal tibial physeal injuries in children: a different treatment concept. J Orthop Trauma 1: 63-67. [Crossref]

2.      Peterson HA, Madhok R, Benson JT, Ilstrup DM, Melton LJ (1994) Physeal fractures: Part 1. Epidemiology in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1979-1988. J Pediatr Orthop 14: 423-430. [Crossref]

3.      Barmada A, Gaynor T, Mubarak SJ (2003) Premature physeal closure following distal tibia physeal fractures: a new radiographic predictor. J Pediatr Orthop 23: 733-739. [Crossref]

4.      Mizuta T, Benson WM, Foster BK, Paterson DC, Morris LL (1987) Statistical analysis of the incidence of physeal injuries. J Pediatr Orthop 7: 518-523. [Crossref]

5.      Leary JT, Handling M, Talerico M, Yong L, Bowe JA (2009) Physeal fractures of the distal tibia: predictive factors of premature physeal closure and growth arrest. J Pediatr Orthop 29: 356-361. [Crossref]

6.      Podeszwa DA, Mubarak SJ (2012) Physeal fractures of the distal tibia and fibula (Salter-Harris Type I, II, III, and IV fractures). J Pediatr Orthop 32: S62-S68. [Crossref]

7.      Russo F, Moor MA, Mubarak SJ, Pennock AT (2013) Salter-Harris II fractures of the distal tibia: does surgical management reduce the risk of premature physeal closure? J Pediatr Orthop 33: 524-529. [Crossref]

8.      Dabash S, Prabhakar G, Potter E, Thabet AM, Abdelgawad A et al. (2018) Management of growth arrest: Current practice and future directions. J Clin Orthop Trauma 9: S58-S66. [Crossref]

9.      Rohmiller MT, Gaynor TP, Pawelek J, Mubarak SJ (2006) Salter-Harris I and II fractures of the distal tibia: does mechanism of injury relate to premature physeal closure? J Pediatr Orthop 26: 322-328. [Crossref]

10.   Dugan G, Herndon WA, McGuire R (1987) Distal tibial physeal injuries in children: a different treatment concept. J Orthop Trauma 1: 63-67. [Crossref]

11.   Cass JR, Peterson HA (1983) Salter-Harris Type-IV injuries of the distal tibial epiphyseal growth plate, with emphasis on those involving the medial malleolus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65: 1059-1070. [Crossref]

12.   Kling TFJ, Bright RW, Hensinger RN (1984) Distal tibial physeal fractures in children that may require open reduction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66: 647-657. [Crossref]

13.   Cai H, Wang Z, Cai H (2015) Surgical indications for distal tibial epiphyseal fractures in children. Orthopedics 38: e189-e195. [Crossref]

14.   D'Angelo F, Solarino G, Tanas D, Zani A, Cherubino P et al. (2017) Outcome of distal tibia physeal fractures: a review of cases as related to risk factors. Injury 48: S7-S11. [Crossref]

15.   Seel EH, Noble S, Clarke NMP, Uglow MG (2011) Outcome of distal tibial physeal injuries. J Pediatr Orthop B 20: 242-248. [Crossref]

16.   Spiegel PG, Cooperman DR, Laros GS (1978) Epiphyseal fractures of the distal ends of the tibia and fibula. A retrospective study of two hundred and thirty-seven cases in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60: 1046-1050. [Crossref]

17.   Hynes D, O'Brien T (1988) Growth disturbance lines after injury of the distal tibial physis. Their significance in prognosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70: 231-233. [Crossref]

18.  Langenskiöld A (1967) Traumatic premature closure of the distal tibial epiphyseal plate. Acta Orthop Scand 38: 520-531. [Crossref]