4.1 Article

Comparison of Different Bone Age Methods and Chronological Age in Prediction of Remaining Growth Around the Knee

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS
Volume 43, Issue 6, Pages 386-391

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000002397

Keywords

Bone Age; Growth; Limb length discrepancy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the Greulich and Pyle (GP) method and the Sauvegrain (SG) method in assessing bone age (BA), and found that the GP method was the most accurate in estimating remaining growth in the lower extremities.
Background:Bone age (BA) has been shown to be superior to chronological age (CA) when predicting remaining growth. However, it is not known whether the calculations are more accurate when BA is assessed by the Greulich and Pyle (GP) or the Sauvegrain (SG) methods. The aim of our study was to identify the method which gives an estimate closest to actual growth in the lower extremities. Methods:Leg length radiographs, hand radiographs, and elbow radiographs were simultaneously obtained during the adolescent growth spurt (10 to 16 years) in 52 children treated for LLD, with radiographic follow-up of segmental length (femur, tibia, and foot) until skeletal maturity, were randomly selected from a local institutional register. BA, according to GP and SG, were manually rated, and BA based on the GP method was additionally assessed by the automated BoneXpert (BX) method. The remaining growth was calculated based on the White-Menelaus method for both BA methods (GP, SG), the combination of the 2 methods, GP by BX, CA, and the combination of CA and GP by BX. Estimated growth was compared with the actual growth in the distal femur and proximal tibia from the time of BA determination until skeletal maturity. Results:For all included methods, the average calculated remaining growth was higher compared with the actual growth. The mean absolute difference between calculated remaining growth and actual growth in the femur and tibia was lowest using GP by BX [0.66 cm (SD 0.51 cm) and 0.43 cm (SD 0.34 cm)] and highest using CA [1.02 (SD 0.72) and 0.67 (SD 0.46)]. It was a significant association between calculated growth and the difference between actual and calculated growth for the SG method (P=<0.001). Conclusion:During the adolescent growth spurt, the GP method compared with the SG method and CA gives the most accurate estimate of remaining growth around the knee according to our results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available