MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413041223 · doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000003073

Sleeper Plate for Guided Growth: Does the Plate Material Change the Risk of Tethering?

2025· article· en· W4413041223 on OpenAlexaff
Gourav Jandial, Mina M. Gerges, Harpreet Chhina, Anthony Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of NewfoundlandBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronal planePhysisDeformityTetheringOrthodonticsSurgeryAnatomyRadiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pediatric coronal plane deformities are commonly managed by guiding growth by placing an extraperiosteal 2-hole plate across the growth plate with 1 epiphyseal and 1 metaphyseal screw. Once the correction is achieved, removing the metaphyseal screw only (sleeper plate) has been described to facilitate easier future corrections if deformity rebounds. A complication commonly described with this approach is tethering, where the patient continues to overcorrect despite the elimination of tension across the physis. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sleeper plates and assess the rate of tethering in stainless steel (SS) versus titanium alloy (Ti) plates. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent guided growth procedures for coronal plane deformities between February 2014 and September 2023. Fifty-two sleeper plates were identified in 34 patients, out of which 30 were SS and 22 were Ti. We examined for rebounding necessitating screw reinsertion and tethering requiring plate removal. This was done by measuring mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and mechanical axis deviation (MAD) during follow-up. RESULTS: The median age at plate insertion was 8.6 (SS) years versus 9.7 (Ti). The median age at screw removal was 10.7 years for the SS group and 10.8 years for the Ti group after deformity correction. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to age at plate insertion ( P -value=0.945) and the age at screw removal ( P -value=0.85). Overall, 40% of plates rebounded with 27% in SS and 59% in the Ti group ( P -value=0.027), which could be explained by longer follow-up in the Ti group that was statistically different ( P -value <0.001). 4/52 plates had tethering, and, of note, all the tethers were seen in the Ti group, with the median duration between screw removal and tethering first noticed being 1.1 years. All 4 patients corrected over time with the removal of the whole plate, none developed a physeal bar, and all went on to achieve normal alignment. The study had over 80% power to detect differences in tethering with a statistically significant P -value of 0.015. CONCLUSION: Sleeper plate is a viable technique for correcting coronal plane deformity, though tethering leading to overcorrection is a potential complication, especially with Ti implants. Based on our results, we advise avoiding Ti implants for sleeper plates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207