A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of Different Bone Age Methods and Chronological Age in Prediction of Remaining Growth Around the Knee. | LitMetric

Background: Bone age (BA) has been shown to be superior to chronological age (CA) when predicting remaining growth. However, it is not known whether the calculations are more accurate when BA is assessed by the Greulich and Pyle (GP) or the Sauvegrain (SG) methods. The aim of our study was to identify the method which gives an estimate closest to actual growth in the lower extremities.

Methods: Leg length radiographs, hand radiographs, and elbow radiographs were simultaneously obtained during the adolescent growth spurt (10 to 16 years) in 52 children treated for LLD, with radiographic follow-up of segmental length (femur, tibia, and foot) until skeletal maturity, were randomly selected from a local institutional register. BA, according to GP and SG, were manually rated, and BA based on the GP method was additionally assessed by the automated BoneXpert (BX) method. The remaining growth was calculated based on the White-Menelaus method for both BA methods (GP, SG), the combination of the 2 methods, GP by BX, CA, and the combination of CA and GP by BX. Estimated growth was compared with the actual growth in the distal femur and proximal tibia from the time of BA determination until skeletal maturity.

Results: For all included methods, the average calculated remaining growth was higher compared with the actual growth. The mean absolute difference between calculated remaining growth and actual growth in the femur and tibia was lowest using GP by BX [0.66 cm (SD 0.51 cm) and 0.43 cm (SD 0.34 cm)] and highest using CA [1.02 (SD 0.72) and 0.67 (SD 0.46)]. It was a significant association between calculated growth and the difference between actual and calculated growth for the SG method ( P =<0.001).

Conclusion: During the adolescent growth spurt, the GP method compared with the SG method and CA gives the most accurate estimate of remaining growth around the knee according to our results.

Clinical Relevance: In calculations of remaining growth around the knee, BA assessment by the GP atlas or BX method should be used as the parameter of biological maturity.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000002397DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

remaining growth
20
actual growth
16
growth
13
bone age
8
chronological age
8
femur tibia
8
methods combination
8
compared actual
8
calculated remaining
8
calculated growth
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!