2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.11.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiplier Method for Limb-Length Prediction in the Upper Extremity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The equations for the determination of arm and forearm length and circumference presented here are limited in that they can only be used to determine a child's expected upper extremity size at his or her current age based on current physical parameters. To predict the adult length of a child's arm and forearm, Paley et al 17 provided upper extremity multipliers that can be used in combination with a patient's age and current arm or forearm length. This method can be used to accurately predict the extent of a child's limb length discrepancy in adulthood.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The equations for the determination of arm and forearm length and circumference presented here are limited in that they can only be used to determine a child's expected upper extremity size at his or her current age based on current physical parameters. To predict the adult length of a child's arm and forearm, Paley et al 17 provided upper extremity multipliers that can be used in combination with a patient's age and current arm or forearm length. This method can be used to accurately predict the extent of a child's limb length discrepancy in adulthood.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LLD is diagnosed clinically on the basis of medical history and physical examination and may be secondary to a variety of causes (congenital deformity, infection, trauma, skeletal dysplasia and metabolic disease) [3][4][5][6][7]. Therapeutic management varies from conservative treatment to various surgical techniques, according to the aetiology of the LLD and more importantly, to the leglength prediction at skeletal maturity [6,8]. Minor discrepancies are frequently neglected as they have no known cause and tend to evolve favorably.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Majority of these patients are asymptomatic with symptomatic severe deformity occurring when growth arrest is more than 1 cm [ 8 ]. Physeal bar, when detected early, can be treated easily before the development of severe deformity by non-operative method if remaining growth can lead to <2 mm of positive ulnar variance as predicted by multiplier method mentioned by Paley et al [ 12 ]. More than 2.5 mm predicted growth of distal ulna relative to distal radius can lead to ulnar impaction with altered wrist mechanics and it needs surgical intervention [ 11 , 13 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More than 2.5 mm predicted growth of distal ulna relative to distal radius can lead to ulnar impaction with altered wrist mechanics and it needs surgical intervention [ 11 , 13 ]. Modality of early surgical intervention includes removal of physeal bar and placement of interposition material into the void to permit the remaining growth, thus preventing complex reconstructive procedures with significant morbidity [ 11 , 12 ]. Treatment modalities for more severe deformities include corrective osteotomy of the distal radius, epiphysiodesis of the distal ulna with or without radial lengthening, and ulnar shortening osteotomy [ 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%