Assessment of skeletal age is important in children’s orthopaedics. We compared two simplified methods used in the assessment of skeletal age. Both methods have been described previously with one based on the appearance of the epiphysis at the olecranon and the other on the digital epiphyses. We also investigated the influence of assessor experience on applying these two methods. Our investigation was based on the anteroposterior left hand and lateral elbow radiographs of 44 boys (mean: 14.4; 12.4 to 16.1 ) and 78 girls (mean: 13.0; 11.1 to14.9) obtained during the pubertal growth spurt. A total of nine observers examined the radiographs with the observers assigned to three groups based on their experience (experienced, intermediate and novice). These raters were required to determined skeletal ages twice at six-week intervals. The correlation between the two methods was determined per assessment and per observer groups. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) evaluated the reproducibility of the two methods. The overall correlation between the two methods was r = 0.83 for boys and r = 0.84 for girls. The correlation was equal between first and second assessment, and between the observer groups (r ≥ 0.82). There was an equally strong ICC for the assessment effect (ICC ≤ 0.4%) and observer effect (ICC ≤ 3%) for each method. There was no significant (p < 0.05) difference between the levels of experience. The two methods are equally reliable in assessing skeletal maturity. The olecranon method offers detailed information during the pubertal growth spurt, while the digital method is as accurate but less detailed, making it more useful after the pubertal growth spurt once the olecranon has ossified. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;3:1556–60

Purpose: Most displaced olecranon fractures can be treated with ORIF. However with severe comminution or bone loss, excision of the fragments and repair of the triceps to the ulna is recommended. The triceps can be reattached to either the anterior or posterior aspect of the ulna. The purpose of this in-vitro study was to determine the effect of triceps repair technique on elbow laxity and extension strength in the setting of olecranon deficiency. Method: Eight unpreserved cadaveric arms were used (age 75 ± 11 years). Surface models were generated from CT images and sequential olecranon resections in 25% increments were performed using real-time navigation. Muscle tendons (biceps, brachialis, brachioradialis and triceps) were sutured to actuators of an elbow motion simulator, which produced active extension. A tracking system recorded kinematics in the varus and valgus positions. A triceps advancement was performed using either an anterior or posterior repair to the remaining olecranon in random order. Triceps extension strength was measured in the dependent position with the elbow flexed 90° using a force transducer located at the distal ulnar styloid, while triceps tension was increased from 25–200 N. Outcome variables included maximum varus-valgus elbow laxity and triceps extension strength. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs were performed for laxity comparing resection level and repair method. Three-way repeated measures ANOVAs were performed for triceps extension strength comparing triceps tension, resection level and repair method. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Progressive olecranon resection increased elbow laxity (p < 0.001). Although the posterior repair produced slightly greater laxity for all but the 50% resection, this difference was not significant (p = 0.2). The posterior repair provided greater extension strength than the anterior repair at all applied triceps tensions and for all olecranon resections (p = 0.01). The initial 0% resection reduced extension strength for both repairs (p < 0.01), however, there was no effect of progressive olecranon resections (p = 0.09). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in laxity between the anterior and posterior repairs. Thus even for large olecranon resections, the technique of triceps repair does not have significant influence on joint stability. Extension strength was not reduced by progressive olecranon resections, perhaps due to wrapping of the triceps tendon around the trochlea putting it in-line with the ulna and giving it a constant moment arm. Triceps extension strength was higher for the posterior repair. This is likely due to the greater distance and hence moment arm of the posterior repair to the joint rotation center. Conversely, the anterior repair brings the triceps insertion closer to the joint center, reducing the moment arm. Since there was no significant difference in laxity between the repairs, the authors favour the posterior repair due to its significantly higher triceps extension strength