Guided growth is commonly performed by placing an extra-periosteal two-hole plate across the growth plate with one epiphyseal and one metaphyseal screw. Recent work by Keshet et al. (2019) investigated the efficacy of the removal of the metaphyseal screw only (“sleeper plate”) after correction. They concluded the practice to be unnecessary as only 19% of patient show recurrence of deformity. The aim of this study is to examine the incidence of rebound and undesired bony in-growth of the plate (“tethering”) after metaphyseal screw removal only.

In this retrospective case series, patient data on 144 plates inserted around the knee was obtained. Plates still in situ (n=69) at time of study and full hardware removal (n=50) were excluded. The remaining 25 plates had a metaphyseal screw only removed after deformity correction. We analyzed the rate of re-bound, tethering and maintenance of correction in two age groups at latest follow-up for a mean of 3.5 years (1.25 to five). Fisher's exact test with Freeman-Halton extension was used to analyze the two by three contingency table.

Twenty-five plates were identified as “sleeper plates” in our series. 13 plates (52%) maintained the achieved correction after a mean of 21 months (four to 39), nine plates (36%) required screw re-insertion due to rebound after a mean of 22 months (12-48) from screw removal, and four plates (16%) showed tethering with undesired continuation of guided growth after a mean of 14 months (seven to 22) from screw removal. Younger patients (years at time of plate insertion) had higher rates of rebound and tethering (p=.0112, Fisher's exact test). All Tethering occurred in titanium plates, none occurred in steel plates.

The sleeper plate is an acceptable treatment strategy for coronal deformities around the knee. Rebounding and tethering are potential outcomes that occur in younger patients and should be disclosed to patients; titanium plates may increase the risk of tethering, however further long-term follow-up is needed. We stress the importance of close post-operative follow up to identify tethering early and prevent over correction.

The sleeper plate technique is a viable option in younger children with congenital abnormalities, however, continued monitoring of alignment is necessary after screw removal to check for rebound and tethering.

Bone age is a radiographical assessment used in pediatric medicine due to its relative objectivity in determining biological maturity compared to chronological age and size.1 Currently, Greulich and Pyle (GP) is one of the most common methods used to determine bone age from hand radiographs.2–4 In recent years, new methods were developed to increase the efficiency in bone age analysis like the shorthand bone age (SBA) and the automated artificial intelligence algorithms. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of these two methods and examine if the reduction in analysis time compromises their accuracy.

Two hundred thirteen males and 213 females were selected. Each participant had their bone age determined by two separate raters using the GP (M1) and SBA methods (M2). Three weeks later, the two raters repeated the analysis of the radiographs. The raters timed themselves using an online stopwatch while analyzing the radiograph on a computer screen. De-identified radiographs were securely uploaded to an automated algorithm developed by a group of radiologists in Toronto. The gold standard was determined to be the radiology report attached to each radiograph, written by experienced radiologists using GP (M1). For intra-rater variability, intraclass correlation analysis between trial 1 (T1) and trial 2 (T2) for each rater and method was performed. For inter-rater variability, intraclass correlation was performed between rater 1 (R1) and rater 2 (R2) for each method and trial.

Intraclass correlation between each method and the gold standard fell within the 0.8–0.9 range, highlighting significant agreement. Most of the comparisons showed a statistically significant difference between the two new methods and the gold standard; however it may not be clinically significant as it ranges between 0.25–0.5 years. A bone age is considered clinically abnormal if it falls outside 2 standard deviations of the chronological age; standard deviations are calculated and provided in GP atlas.6–8 For a 10-year old female, 2 standard deviations constitute 21.6 months which far outweighs the difference reported here between SBA, automated algorithm and the gold standard. The median time for completion using the GP method was 21.83 seconds for rater 1 and 9.30 seconds for rater 2. In comparison, SBA required a median time of 7 seconds for rater 1 and 5 seconds for rater 2. The automated method had no time restraint as bone age was determined immediately upon radiograph upload. The correlation between the two trials in each method and rater (i.e. R1M1T1 vs R1M1T2) was excellent (κ= 0.9–1) confirming the reliability of the two new methods. Similarly, the correlation between the two raters in each method and trial (i.e. R1M1T1 vs R2M1T1) fell within the 0.9–1 range. This indicates a limited variability between raters who may use these two methods.

The shorthand bone age method and an artificial intelligence automated algorithm produced values that are in agreement with the gold standard Greulich and Pyle, while reducing analysis time and maintaining a high inter-rater and intra-rater reliability.