Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Apr;7(1):27-32.
doi: 10.1007/s11751-012-0133-8. Epub 2012 Mar 31.

Outcomes and complications of fibular head resection

Affiliations

Outcomes and complications of fibular head resection

D K Agarwal et al. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

The fibular head is often used as donor graft material for reconstruction of defects of the distal radius. However little is known on the safety of such a procedure. This report describes the long-term donor-site morbidity following the procedure. Fourteen patients who underwent simple or marginal resections of the proximal fibula between 1990 and 2007 were reviewed. Subjective donor-site morbidity, knee and ankle range of motion and instability, presence of sensory or motor function loss, gait and fibular regeneration were assessed. The mean age at surgery was 25 years; six were male, eight were female and the mean follow-up was 11 years. Abnormal clinical findings were present in 10 patients (71.4 %): nine patients (64.3 %) had Grade 2 varus laxity at the knee confirmed by stress radiographs; one had sensory loss in the distribution of the superficial peroneal nerve. Patients with varus laxity had significantly higher mean age at surgery than those without varus laxity (p = 0.001). None had deformity at the knee or ankle. The range of joint movements was normal. All had a normal tibiotalar angle and none had proximal migration of the fibula. One patient demonstrated near-complete regeneration of the fibula. Donor-site morbidity following simple and marginal resection of the proximal fibula is acceptable. Older patients had a higher risk of demonstrable varus laxity at the knee but proximal fibula resection in children appears to be safe.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Varus stress radiograph of both knees showing a significant increase in lateral joint space after resection of the proximal fibula on the right side
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proximal fibula regeneration after resection

References

    1. Springfield D. Autograft reconstructions. Orthop Clin North Am. 1996;27:483–492. - PubMed
    1. Weiland AJ, Moore JR, Daniel RK. Vascularized bone autografts. Clin Orthop. 1983;174:87–95. - PubMed
    1. Murray RA, Brindley HH. The proximal fibula: indications for excision and use. South Med J. 1957;50(3):297–302. doi: 10.1097/00007611-195703000-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Murray JA, Schlafly B. Giant cell tumors in the distal end of the radius. Treatment by resection and fibular autograft interpositional arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:687–694. - PubMed
    1. Bassiony AA. Giant cell tumour of the distal radius: wide resection and reconstruction by non-vascularised proximal fibular autograft. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2009;38(10):900–904. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources