The traditional techniques involving an oblique tunnel or triangular wedge resection to approach a central or mixed-type physeal bar are hindered by poor visualisation of the bar. This may be overcome by a complete transverse osteotomy at the metaphysis near the growth plate or a direct vertical approach to the bar. Ilizarov external fixation using small wires allows firm fixation of the short physis-bearing fragment, and can also correct an associated angular deformity and permit limb lengthening.

We accurately approached and successfully excised ten central- or mixed-type bars; six in the distal femur, two in the proximal tibia and two in the distal tibia, without damaging the uninvolved physis, and corrected the associated angular deformity and leg-length discrepancy. Callus formation was slightly delayed because of periosteal elevation and stretching during resection of the bar. The resultant resection of the bar was satisfactory in seven patients and fair in three as assessed using a by a modified Williamson–Staheli classification.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1726–31.

Physeal bar resection for partial growth plate arrest was first described by Langenskjold in 1967. The initial enthusiasm by Peterson (1989) who found that 83% of patients resumed physeal growth was tempered by Birch (1992) who only had 33% success. Poor results were due to failure to resume growth or premature growth arrest. We retrospectively reviewed 21 physeal bar resections performed in 19 children from 1987 to 2003. The average age at surgery was 8.2 years (range 3–12 years). The aetiology of the physeal arrest was : growth plate fracture (8), meningococcal septicaemia (5), osteitis (3; 2 neonatal), dysplasia (3), gunshot (1) and idiopathic (1). The commonest site was the distal femur (12; 5 due to growth plate fracture), followed by the proximal tibia (5; 3 due to meningococcal septicaemia), and the distal tibia (4; 2 due to growth plate fractures). Assessment of the size and location of the bar was with biplanar tomography in 7, MRI in 5 and both in 7. We found equal accuracy with both modalities, but currently prefer MRI. The bar was plotted on an anterior-posterior and lateral map of the growth plate. The average size of the bar was 25% (range 15 to 50%) of the area of the growth plate. Only 3 bars were larger than 30%. Fifteen of the bars were peripheral, 5 linear and 1 central. Results were classified poor if there was no resumption of growth or if premature growth plate arrest occurred, good if there was resumption of growth which continued to maturity or to follow-up, and excellent if the growth exceeded the expected growth. There were 5 (24%) poor results; all failed to resume growth. Three bars exceeded 30% and 2 were due to meningococcal septicaemia. The remaining 16 bars were followed up for a range of 2 to 12 years; 10 to maturity. Four (19%) had an excellent and 12 (57%) had a good result. The authors conclude that physeal bar resection is a worthwhile procedure if the size of the bar is equal to or less than 30% of the area of the growth plate. In growth arrest due to meningococcal septicaemia we only had a 60% success rate