Routine radiographic follow-up is not necessary after physeal fractures of the distal tibia in children

Figures & data

Figure 1. The Peterson fracture classification.

Figure 2. Etiology of distal tibial epiphyseal fractures.

Table 1. Basic characteristics of the study population (n = 224) according to different fracture classifications

Factor	Cohort	Cast	MUA	Operative
Peterson:
I	6 (3%)	3	2	1
II	123 (55%)	80	29	14
III	12 (5%)	6	4	2
IV	21 (9%)	11		10
V	16 (6%)	6	5	5
Tillaux	17 (7%)	7		10
Triplane	29 (13%)	8	4	17
Mean age	12 (1–15)	11 (1–15)	12 (3–15)	13 (8–15)
Leg cast (weeks)	6 (2–8)	6 (2–7)	6 (3–7)	6 (4–8)
Radiographs	3 (0–6)	2 (0–5)	3 (1–5)	2 (2–6)
Follow-ups	3 (1–7)	2 (1–6)	3 (1–6)	3 (1–7)
Time of growth control (months)	7 (3.5–15)	6.5 (3.5–14)	7 (4–13)	8 (4–15)

Values are given as median (range).

Figure 3. Number of follow-up radiographs to monitor fracture alignment and union of fracture.

Table 2. Patients whose growth plate function was monitored according to Peterson classification and method of treatment

Type	Total cohort n = 224	Monitored n = 95	Treatment of monitored
			Cast n = 40	MUA n = 20	Operative n = 35
Peterson:
I	6	3	2	–	1
II	123	60	32	14	14
III	12	5	1	2	2
IV	21	7	1	–	6
V	16	7	2	2	3
Tillaux	17	2	1	–	1
Triplane	29	11	1	2	8