KNEE & LEGHistological differences between various methods of hemiepiphysiodesis is guided growth really different?Sanpera, Ignacio Jra; Raluy-Collado, Davida; Frontera-Juan, Guillemc; Ramos-Asensio, Rafaelb; Tejada-Gavela, Silviad; Sanpera-Iglesias, JuliaaAuthor Information Departments of aPeadiatric Orthopaedics bMorbid Anatomy cResearch Unit, Hospital Universitari Son Espases dExperimental Laboratory, Hospital Son Llatzer, Palma de Mallorca, Spain Correspondence to Ignacio Sanpera Jr, MD, PhD, Paediatric Orthopaedic Department, Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Crta Valldemosa 79, Palma 07009, Spain Tel: +34 686 925 885; fax: +34 971 401 500; e-mail: email@example.com Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B: July 2015 - Volume 24 - Issue 4 - p 308-314 doi: 10.1097/BPB.0000000000000159 Buy Metrics Abstract Traditional systems of hemiepiphysiodesis are based on the application of asymmetrical compression to the physis to correct angular deformities. The guided growth method claims to act as a tension plate avoiding compression. The aim of this study was to confirm or refute this claim. Twenty-four White New Zealand rabbits were subjected to a proximal tibial hemiepiphysiodesis using either staples or a plate and two-screws method. Both methods succeeded in producing deformity. The initial existent histological differences between systems became less apparent after 6 weeks of hemiepiphysiodesis, when histological results were very similar. The findings suggest that the eight-plate system produces, like staples, compression of the physis, but the forces are applied more gradually. Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.