Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 27, 2026

Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
Published on: May 23, 2020
Angular deformity correction by guided growth in growing children: Eight-plate versus 3.5-mm reconstruction plate
Kyeong-Hyeon Park1, Chang-Wug Oh1, Joon-Woo Kim1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Background:
Guided growth using the eight-plate (8-plate) is the most commonly used method to correct angular deformities in children; however, implant failure has been reported. Recently, the 3.5-mm reconstruction plate (R-plate) has been used as an alternative option for guided growth; however, hardware prominence has been problematic. This study aimed to compare the coronal angular deformity correction results of guided growth between relatively thin 8-plates with cannulated screws and thick R-plates with solid screws.
Methods:
Thirty-nine physes (24 distal femoral, 15 proximal tibial) in 20 patients underwent hemiepiphysiodesis using 8-plates, and 61 physes (40 distal femoral, 21 proximal tibial) in 35 patients underwent hemiepiphysiodesis using R-plates. Coronal angular corrections were measured and compared preoperatively, and after the completion of corrections. Amounts and rates of correction and complications were compared between the groups.
Results:
Mean body mass index was 18.7 kg/m2 in the 8-plate group, and 22.7 kg/m2 in the R-plate group. Angular correction was achieved in all deformities at a mean of 13.7 months and 19.7 months in the 8-plate and the R-plate group, respectively. The mean corrected mechanical lateral distal femoral angle was 9.0° in the 8-plate group, and 9.9° in the R-plate group (P = 0.55). The mean corrected medial proximal tibial angle was 7.1° in the 8-plate group, and 9.0° in the R-plate group (P = 0.07). The mean rates of angular correction were also not significantly different in the distal femur (1.03°/month vs. 0.77°/month, P = 0.2) and the proximal tibia (0.66°/month vs. 0.63°/month, P = 0.77). There was one superficial infection in each group, and one case of implant failure in the R-plate group. Two rebound deformities were observed and needed repeat hemiepiphysiodesis. Permanent physeal arrest was not observed in this series.
More Related Videos
06:38Establishment of a Segmental Femoral Critical-size Defect Model in Mice Stabilized by Plate Osteosynthesis
Published on: October 12, 2016
06:53A Rat Tibial Growth Plate Injury Model to Characterize Repair Mechanisms and Evaluate Growth Plate Regeneration Strategies
Published on: July 4, 2017