Aims. Accurate skeletal age and final adult height prediction methods in paediatric orthopaedics are crucial for determining optimal timing of growth-guiding interventions and minimizing complications in treatments of various conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of final adult height predictions using the central peak height (CPH) method with long leg X-rays and four different multiplier tables. Methods. This study included 31 patients who underwent temporary hemiepiphysiodesis for varus or valgus deformity of the leg between 2014 and 2020. The skeletal age at surgical intervention was evaluated using the CPH method with long leg radiographs. The true final adult height (FH. TRUE. ) was determined when the growth plates were closed. The final height prediction accuracy of four different multiplier tables (1. Bayley and Pinneau; 2. Paley et al; 3. Sanders – Greulich and Pyle (SGP); and 4. Sanders – peak height velocity (PHV)) was then compared using either skeletal age or chronological age. Results. All final adult height predictions overestimated the FH. TRUE. , with the SGP multiplier table having the lowest overestimation and lowest absolute deviation when using both chronological age and skeletal age. There were no significant differences in final height prediction accuracy between using skeletal age and chronological age with PHV (p = 0.652) or SGP multiplier tables (p = 0.969). Adult height predictions with chronological age and SGP (r = 0.769; p ≤ 0.001), as well as chronological age and PHV (r = 0.822; p ≤ 0.001), showed higher correlations with FH. TRUE. than predictions with skeletal age and SGP (r = 0.657; p ≤ 0.001) or skeletal age and PHV (r = 0.707; p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion. There was no significant improvement in adult height prediction accuracy when using the CPH method compared to chronological age alone. The study concludes that there is no advantage in routinely using the CPH method for skeletal age determination over the simple use of chronological age. The findings highlight the need for more accurate methods to predict final adult height in contemporary patient populations. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):750–757

Aims. Vertebral body tethering (VBT) is a non-fusion technique to correct scoliosis. It allows correction of scoliosis through growth modulation (GM) by tethering the convex side to allow concave unrestricted growth similar to the hemiepiphysiodesis concept. The other modality is anterior scoliosis correction (ASC) where the tether is able to perform most of the correction immediately where limited growth is expected. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiological data of 20 patients aged between 9 and 17 years old, (with a 19 female: 1 male ratio) between January 2014 to December 2016 with a mean five-year follow-up (4 to 7). Results. There were ten patients in each group with a total of 23 curves operated on. VBT-GM mean age was 12.5 years (9 to 14) with a mean Risser classification of 0.63 (0 to 2) and VBT-ASC was 14.9 years (13 to 17) with a mean Risser classification of 3.66 (3 to 5). Mean preoperative VBT-GM Cobb was 47.4° (40° to 58°) with a Fulcrum unbend of 17.4 (1° to 41°), compared to VBT-ASC 56.5° (40° to 79°) with 30.6 (2° to 69°)unbend. Postoperative VBT-GM was 20.3° and VBT-ASC Cobb angle was 11.2°. The early postoperative correction rate was 54.3% versus 81% whereas Fulcrum Bending Correction Index (FBCI) was 93.1% vs 146.6%. The last Cobb angle on radiograph at mean five years’ follow-up was 19.4° (VBT-GM) and 16.5° (VBT-ASC). Patients with open triradiate cartilage (TRC) had three over-corrections. Overall, 5% of patients required fusion. This one patient alone had a over-correction, a second-stage tether release, and final conversion to fusion. Conclusion. We show a high success rate (95%) in helping children avoid fusion at five years post-surgery. VBT is a safe technique for correction of scoliosis in the skeletally immature patient. This is the first report at five years that shows two methods of VBT can be employed depending on the skeletal maturity of the patient: GM and ASC. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):123–129