Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 315–319

Histomorphometric analysis of an adolescent distal tibial physis prior to growth plate closure

  • Jeremy Russell White
  • Norman J. Wilsman
  • Ellen M. Leiferman
  • Kenneth J. Noonan
Basic Science



Our current understanding of the rate and pattern of physeal closure is based on roentgenographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and qualitative histological studies. The purpose of this report is to provide a detailed histomorphometric/stereological analysis of a distal tibial human growth plate in the process of physiological epiphysiodesis.


A human distal tibial growth plate was sampled in three regions (anterior, central, and posterior), with each region further separated medially, in the middle, and laterally. The regions were assessed for the location and extent of bony bar formation as well as for physeal height. Companion sections from optimally fixed tissue in the distal 100 µm of the hypertrophic zone were analyzed for hypertrophic chondrocytic volumes.


Physis closure started in the middle of the central region of the growth plate, with 46% of the volume in this area occupied by trans-physeal bridging bone. The growth plate was also narrowed with the lowest physeal heights evident in the middle of the central and anterior regions of the physis. Disruption of the regular columns of the physis was evident with the cells arranged in clusters with intervening areas of acellularity. The average hypertrophic cell volume was 5,900 µm3 and did not significantly differ between different areas of the physis.


This is the first characterization of closure in a human distal tibial growth plate via optimum fixation and stereological techniques. The studied physis was during the earliest phases of closure and provides stereological support that the distal tibial physis closes in a central to medial direction.


Epiphysiodesis Physis Histomorphometry 


  1. 1.
    Ogden JA, McCarthy SM (1983) Radiology of postnatal skeletal development. VIII. Distal tibia and fibula. Skelet Radiol 10(4):209–220. doi:10.1007/BF00357893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kump WL (1966) Vertical fractures of the distal tibial epiphysis. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 97(3):676–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kleiger B, Mankin HJ (1964) Fractures of the lateral portion of the distal tibial epiphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 46:25–32Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung T, Jarmillo D (1995) Normal maturing distal tibia and fibula: changes with age at MR imaging. Radiology 194(1):227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Love SM, Ganey R, Ogden JA (1990) Postnatal epiphyseal development: the distal tibia and fibula. J Pediatr Orthop 10(3):299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilsman NJ, Farnum CE, Leiferman EM et al (1996) Differential growth by growth plates as a function of multiple parameters of chondrocytic kinetics. J Orthop Res 14:927–936. doi:10.1002/jor.1100140613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hunziker EB, Herrmann W, Schenk RK (1982) Improved cartilage fixation by ruthenium hexamine trichloride (RHT). J Ultrastruct Res 81:1–12. doi:10.1016/S0022-5320(82)90036-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cruz-Orive LM, Hunziker EB (1986) Stereology for anisotrophic cells: application to growth plate cartilage. J Microsc 143:47–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humphrey CD, Pittman FE (1974) A simple methylene blue-azure II-basic fuchsin stain for epoxy-embedded tissue sections. Stain Technol 49(1):9–13Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cruz-Orive LM, Hunziker EB (1986) Stereology for anisotrophic cells: application to growth plate cartilage. J Microsc 143:47–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gundersen HJG, Bendtsen TF, Korbo L et al. The new stereological tools. APMIS (1988): 96:379–394, 857–881Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noonan KJ, Hunziker EB, Nessler J et al (1998) Changes in cell, matrix compartment, and fibrillar collagen volumes between growth-plate zones. J Orthop Res 16:500–508. doi:10.1002/jor.1100160416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Leeuwen BL, Kamps WA, Jansen HW et al (2000) The effect of chemotherapy on the growing skeleton. Cancer Treat Rev 26(5):363–376. doi:10.1053/ctrv.2000.0180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roach HI, Mehta G, Oreffo RO et al (2003) Temporal analysis of rat growth plates: cessation of growth with age despite presence of a physis. J Histochem Cytochem 51(3):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilsman NJ, Farnum CE, Leiferman EM et al (1999) Growth plate biology in the context of growth by saltations and stasis. In: Lampl M (ed) Saltation stasis and human growth and development: evidence, methods, and theory. Smith-Gordon, Philadelphia, pp 71–87Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hall AC, Macnicol MF (2003) Looking at the human growth plate. Can Assoc Med J 168(4):459–460Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buckwalter JA, Mower D, Ungar R et al (1986) Morphometric analysis of chondrocyte hypertrophy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:243–255Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hunziker EB, Schenk RK (1989) Physiological mechanisms adopted by chondrocytes in regulating longitudinal bone growth in rats. J Physiol 414:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buckwalter JA, Sjolund RD (1990) Growth of cornstalks and long bones: does longitudinal bone growth depend on a matrix directed hydraulic mechanism? Iowa Orthop J 9:25–31Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kronenberg HM (2003) Insight review articles: developmental regulation of the growth plate. Nature 423:332–336. doi:10.1038/nature01657CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EPOS 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy Russell White
    • 1
    • 3
  • Norman J. Wilsman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ellen M. Leiferman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kenneth J. Noonan
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.The School of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Comparative BiosciencesUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedics and RehabilitationK4/732 Clinical Science CenterMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations