We really appreciate the thoughtful and detailed comments by the readers in referencing our paper on subsidence in tibia lengthening [1]. In almost all our cases we used the 160 ring. Also, as seen in the figure in our article the patient is a child (as are most of our patients), and thus the first assumption in the comment is erroneous (although as stated below this will have minimal effect on the magnification). Also, as per the comments, for a 180 ring the plate bone distance will be 12.3 and not 13.3, and thus the magnification will be 11.9% (for standard plate focus distance of 115 cm as calculated from formula given below) and not 14.4% as mentioned. Beginning with these two comments on erroneous assumptions made by the readers, we need to take into account here that the subsidence is the difference between two readings. Thus, these magnifications are also subtracted to give us the final magnification of the subsidence fragment which, according to the authors' calculations, will be 14.4% minus 5.8%, which is 8.6%. If we consider the subsidence of mean 1.19 ± 0.78 cm (range 0.4–3.2 cm) to which if the magnification correction of 8.6% is applied (keeping in mind that if the distance is corrected from 14.4 to 11.9 as shown above, then this correction will be 6.1%), it becomes 1.09 ± 0.718 (range 0.36–2.94). Thus, although the reported figures definitely are erroneous in the original paper, we do not think they are completely off the mark. Now we will consider the more accurate assumption in terms of using a 160 ring as was the case in our series. Although the comments have used the centre of tibia as the reference point, we would like to point out that the distracted fragment is rarely at the centre. In our cases the position of the limb in the ring was determined by the posterior clearance of the calf; in fact, this is the point that dictates the use of various ring sizes. If we consider that 5.5 cm is the bone plate distance without ring, we can predict the bone plate distance with the ring. In the ring, the posterior clearance was ideally taken as 2 cm while the ring is 1.5 cm across; this sums to 9 cm bone plate distance [5.5 + 2 + 1.5]. Hence, the size of the ring will have minimal effect on the bone plate distance, which will remain constant irrespective of the ring used (as the breadth of the ring remains constant). To validate this point we made actual measurements in our current patients with similar profile and the distance from calf to the plate was indeed an average of 4.2 cm. Thus, from the examples, the two distances would be 5.5 and 9 cm with corresponding magnification calculated by the formula in Fig. 1 [2]. The standard film focus distance was 115 cm (1150 mm). Fig. 1 Formula for calculation of magnification [2] In this formula the standard film focus distance was taken as 1000 mm while in our case it was 1150 mm. Therefore, when the distance is 55 mm, magnification = 1150/1095 = 1.0502 (i.e. magnification of 5.02%) and when the distance is 90 mm, magnification = 1150/1160 = 1.084 (i.e. magnification of 8.4%). Thus, the respective magnifications would be 5.02% and 8.4% with final magnification of 3.36%, which is well within the 5% alpha error rate (p value 0.05). Once again, although there exists a measurement error in our paper, this was small and well within the acceptable error rates. Apart from mathematical calculations, we are required here to make an important point. Our paper was based on our observations that at two- to three-years follow-up, a few of our patients who underwent bilateral lengthening reported significant difficulties in walking barefoot (without the footwear correction) even though all patients were quite satisfied with the overall results. These patients also had a difference of more than 1 cm between the two lengthened legs, which were originally lengthened by the same amount. This led us to consider the presence of tibial subsidence as a factor, and we performed the investigation in question to study whether such a subsidence actually occurs and to what extent. With our measurements we did find differences in the follow-up lengthening from the final distraction in almost all patients and we tried to quantify this difference (although with error!). In effect, the aim of the paper was to introduce the concept of tibial subsidence, so that more and more of our colleagues would try and measure the subsidence in order to collectively devise a method to avoid this complication which led to unsatisfactory results in quite a few of our patients.
Read full abstract