Percutaneous epiphysiodesis of the lower extremity: a comparison of single- versus double-portal techniques

Percutaneous epiphysiodesis can be achieved using a single-portal or a double-portal technique. This study was performed to demonstrate any differences in outcomes, especially complications, between the 2 techniques.

This was a retrospective review of cases at a single institution from 1983 to 2002 that yielded 336 children, in which 63 qualified for the study with at least 3 years of clinical follow-up. A comparison was performed through clinic chart review and radiographic measurement outcomes, searching for patient satisfaction, surgical time, and complications.

Minor complications included superficial infections, hematomas and effusions, whereas major complications included failure to arrest growth, partial arrest with angular deformity, fracture, and joint penetration. The single-portal group had an overall complication rate of 33.3%, with a major complication rate of 20% per patient. The double-portal group had a similar overall complication rate but only a 5.3% major complication rate per patient. There was no significant difference in patient demographics, operative times, or subjective complaints.

Many methods of percutaneous epiphysiodesis exist in the literature that report low complication rates that are comparable with the complication rate of the original open procedure. Our study demonstrated a significantly higher rate of complications (both minor and major) compared with results previously reported. Moreover, the use of a single-portal approach increased the possibility of major complication by nearly 4-fold as compared with the use of a double-portal approach that avoids crossing the midline of the physis.