Abstract

This retrospective study compares two groups of patients who underwent an epiphysiodesis for leg length discrepancy. In group A (47 patients) the timing of the epiphysiodesis was calculated using the method of Anderson and Green; in group B (36 patients) the Moseley chart was used. A leg length discrepancy of 1.5 cm or less at maturity was considered a satisfactory result. Group A showed 51% good results, group B 63.9%. In both groups, an important source of the poor results was error in calculation and prediction: 30.4% in group A (or 15% of the total), 61.5% in group B (or 22% of the total). The percentage of patients presenting too late was also considerable and accounted for 34.8% of the poor results in group A and for 23.1% in group B. The unpredictability of growth rate is a lesser problem in group B (15.4% of the poor results) than in group A (30.4%). If the uncontrollable causes of poor results are omitted, only 18% of the poor results in the total group of patients could be accounted for by miscalculation.