Aetiology of Bridging
- Definition: Bridging occurs when there is any direct contact or communication between the metaphysis and epiphysis, often resulting in ossification and bar formation.
Most Common Causes
- Trauma
- High-energy injuries.
- Displaced fractures, especially Types 3, 4, and 5.
- Axial compression injuries.
- Surgery
- Pin placement: Thin, smooth, perpendicular pins are safest. Risks increase with threaded, large, oblique pins or multiple passes.
- Interference with perichondrial ring: This ring stabilizes the physis, and disruption can destabilize it.
- Physeal violation with implants (e.g., nails for femur fractures).
- Specific Physes Susceptibility
- Distal femur is highly susceptible due to its wavy structure, which increases surface area, allowing fractures to cross multiple physeal parts.
Non-Fracture Causes
- Irradiation
- Tumors
- Infections
- Congenital disorders (e.g., Madelung’s deformity, Blount’s disease)
Pathophysiology of Physeal Injury & Growth Arrest
Hypertrophic Zone |
Avascular, poor healing potential, mostly cellular with minimal matrix |
Osseo-Cartilaginous Junction |
Metaphysis and physis are supported by the perichondrial ring of LaCroix; damage here disrupts the physis |
- Growth Arrest: Occurs in about 10% of physeal fractures, more common in Type 4 and 5 fractures.
- Adolescents: Higher likelihood of arrest due to the thickness of the physis and weaker cartilage, though with minimal remaining growth potential, impact is less significant.
Classification of Physeal Bars
Position |
Central, Linear, Peripheral |
Size |
Critical size is 50% of physeal area, which is the upper limit for resection; measured on axial CT or MRI for precision. |
X-Ray Evaluation
- Signs:
- Angular deformity.
- Visible bar.
- Asymmetry in Harris growth recovery lines:
- These sclerotic lines indicate calcification post-physeal injury.
- Growth lines should ideally be parallel to the physis; convergence towards a bar suggests arrest.
- The gap between growth lines and the physis shows growth since the injury. Complete arrest shows no growth lines.
- Imaging:
- CT scan: Offers better definition of bony structures.
- MRI scan: Ideal for identifying fibrous bars.
Factors Affecting Bridge Resection
Aetiology |
Trauma-related bars have better outcomes than those from infections. |
Physeal Location & Growth Contribution |
Higher growth potential enhances remodeling. |
Age & Growth Potential |
Younger children benefit more from resection; growth charts help assess potential. |
Bar Size |
Optimal outcomes with bars <25%; resectable up to 50%. |
Bar Location |
- Peripheral: Causes angular deformity; resection recommended. - Central: Harder to resect, causes limb length discrepancy if large. |
Resection Criteria: 1. Child has at least 2 years or 2 cm of remaining growth. 2. Bar size <25%, ideally, but maximum resection up to 50%.
Alternative Treatments to Bar Resection
- Epiphysiodesis
- Prevents angular deformity in older children.
- May include contralateral epiphysiodesis for symmetry.
- Osteotomy
- Corrects angulation; can be combined with bar resection or delayed to observe bar resection’s effect on angulation.
- Limb Lengthening
- Conducted at skeletal maturity.
- Option if bar is irresectable, too large, or resection fails.
- Delayed Hemiepiphysiodesis
- Performed opposite the bar to correct angulation once resected area shows growth.
Resection Technique
- Approach: Based on bar type and location.
- Central bars often need access through osteotomy or a metaphyseal window.
- Use curettes or burrs for bar resection, with continuous irrigation.
- Interposition Grafts: Fill space with a fat or PMMA graft; both materials show equivalent results.
- Corrective Osteotomy: For irreparable angular deformities.
Back to top