medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2007, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2007; 21 (5)

Prothesis use in pediatric patients with fibular hipoplasia

González AOC, Haces GF, Capdevila LR, Rosas GV

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 247-252
PDF size: 190.04 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the prosthesis adaptability at use of pedestal and transtibial prosthesis, recognize the average age of amputation surgery, and the complications of the amputation in patients with fibular hemimelia. Material and methods: 47 patients were evaluated, initially to adjust pedestal prosthesis and when this was not tolerated, we realizes amputation and adaptation of transtibial prosthesis, we valued the average age of amputation surgery, the associate complications and the prosthesis adaptability we use de K system for functional ambulation. Results: Of the 12 patients to actually use pedestal prosthesis 9 (75%) had a K-2 level, 3 (25%) had a K-3 level, of the 35 patients to use transtibial prosthesis 1 (3%) had a K-2 level, 19 (54%) K-3 level, and 15 (43%) in the K-4 level. The average age to amputation surgery was 3.9 years old, one case had a complications. Discussion: The early prosthesis adaptability provides advantages in the functional ambulation, as demonstrated on the results. The goal of the transtibial amputation is to facilitate the prosthesis adaptability, is due to take advantage of the best functional adaptation the child in the first years of life, circumstance that improves the integral rehabilitation of the patient.


REFERENCES

  1. McCarthy JJ, Glancy GL, Chang FM, et al: Fibular hemimelia: comparison of outcome measurements after amputation and lengthening. J Bone Joint Surg 2000; 82A: 1732-5.

  2. Montalvo M, Cassis N, Harfusch A: Alargamiento óseo en pacientes con hemimelia peronea. Act Ortop Mex 2005; 19(3): 99-103.

  3. Brent RL: Prevention of physical and mental congenital defects. Part A: The scope of the problem. In: Marois M. (ed): Progress in clinical and Biological Research. New York, Alan R. Liss. Inc., 1985; 163: 55-68.

  4. Stanitski DF, Stanitski CL: Fibular hemimelia A new classification system. J Pediatr Orthop 2003; 23: 30-4.

  5. Epps CH, Schneider PL: Treatment of hemimelias of the lower extremity. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg 1989; 71A: 273-77.

  6. Lincoln TL, Mack PW, Birch JG: Functional classification of fibular deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg 2001; 83B Suppl IV: 401-2.

  7. Acherman C, Kalamchi A: Congenital deficiency of the fibula. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1979; 61: 133-37.

  8. Trey F, Jon RD, Leslie CM, et al: Longitudinal deficiency of the fibula. Operative Treatment, J Bone Joint Surg 1996; 78A: 674-82.

  9. Bradish CF: Management of fibular hemimelia. Orthopade 1999; 28: 1034-44.

  10. Merv L, Vincent N: Congenital longitudinal deficiency of the fibula parental refusal of amputation. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1993; 287: 160-6.

  11. Guillespie R: Principles of amputation surgery in children with longitudinal deficiencies of the femur. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1990; 256: 29-38.

  12. Romo HD: Prosthetic knees. Phys Med Rehabil Clinic N Am 2000; 11: 595-607.

  13. Karen F, PT, DHS: Componentry for lower extremity prostheses. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005; 13: 326-35.

  14. Herring J, Barnhill B, Gaffney C: Syme amputation. An evaluation of the physical and psychological function in young patients; J Bone Joint Surg 1986; 68A: 573-8.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com