International Orthopaedics

, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 949–955 | Cite as

Ankle valgus following non-vascularized fibular grafts in children—an outcome evaluation minimum two years after fibular harvest

  • Anil AgarwalEmail author
  • Deepak Kumar
  • Nargesh Agrawal
  • Neeraj Gupta
Original Paper



The literature on ankle valgus development after procuring non-vascularised fibular grafts in children is still scanty. The non-vascularised fibular graft has distinction of fibular regeneration occurring at the donor site.

Material and methods

We retrospectively analysed the valgus deformities at the donor leg following harvest of non-vascularised fibular graft to determine the various contributing factors in growing children. All these patients had minimum two years post index procedure follow up.

The radiological ankle valgus was quantified using Malhotra’s distal fibular station (0-3), Lateral distal tibial angle (LDTA <84 degrees) and Talar tilt angle >5 degrees. Clinical parameters, evaluated additionally were pain and neuromuscular deficits in the donor limb, if any.


A total of 30 ankles in 23 patients were evaluated. The average patient age was 9.56 years. There was no pain or neuromuscular deficit in the examined limbs at a mean follow up of 39.4 months. The continuity of the fibula in the longitudinal dimension was already restored in 90% limbs. There was presence of radiological valgus deformity in 10 (33%) ankles. The LDTA was abnormal in 80% and talar tilt in 50% valgus ankles. The ankle valgus deformity was found despite the presence of a normal Malhotra station 0. The age of the patient did not seem to influence the ankle valgus deformity.


Radiological ankle valgus is a common occurrence even following non-vascularised fibular harvest. The presence of a regenerated fibula in continuity (90% legs) and almost of similar anatomical longitudinal dimensions (97%) did not deter development of valgus deformity at ankle.

Key words

Children Fibula Graft Non-vascularised Regeneration 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Hospital Scientific Committee approved the study.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual (patient’s parents) participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Sulaiman AR, Wan Z, Awang S, Che Ahmad A, Halim AS, Ahmad Mohd Zain R (2015) Long-term effect on foot and ankle donor site following vascularized fibular graft resection in children. J Pediatr Orthop B 24:450–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nathan SS, Athanasian E, Boland PJ, Healey JH (2009) Valgus ankle deformity after vascularized fibular reconstruction for oncologic disease. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1938–1945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iamaguchi RB, Fucs PM, da Costa AC, Chakkour I (2011) Vascularised fibular graft for the treatment of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia: long-term complications in the donor leg. Int Orthop 35:1065–1070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanaya K, Wada T, Kura H, Yamashita T, Usui M, Ishii S (2002) Valgus deformity of the ankle following harvesting of a vascularized fibular graft in children. J Reconstr Microsurg 18:91–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Omokawa S, Tamai S, Takakura Y, Yajima H, Kawanishi K (1996) A long-term study of the donor-site ankle after vascularized fibula grafts in children. Microsurgery 17:162–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fragnière B, Wicart P, Mascard E, Dubousset J (2003) Prevention of ankle valgus after vascularized fibular grafts in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res 408:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xin Z, Kim K, Jung S (2009) Regeneration of the fibula using a periosteum-preserving technique in children. Orthopedics 32:820PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agarwal A, Kumar A (2016) Fibula regeneration following non-vascularized graft harvest in children. Int Orthop 40:2191–2197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pacelli LL, Gillard J, McLoughlin SW, Buehler MJ (2003) A biomechanical analysis of donor-site ankle instability following free fibular graft harvest. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:597–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soejima O, Ogata K, Ishinishi T, Fukahori Y, Miyauchi R (1994) Anatomic considerations of the peroneal nerve for division of the fibula during high tibial osteotomy. Orthop Rev 23:244–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malhotra D, Puri R, Owen R (1984) Valgus deformity of the ankle in children with spina bifida aperta. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66:381–385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stevens PM (2015) Pediatric ankle valgus: background, anatomy, pathophysiology. Accessed 15 March 2016Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cox JS, Hewes TF (1979) “Normal” talar tilt angle. Clin Orthop Relat Res 140:37–41Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steinlechner CW, Mkandawire NC (2005) Non-vascularised fibular transfer in the management of defects of long bones after sequestrectomy in children. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1259–1263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    González-Herranz P, del Río A, Burgos J, López-Mondejar JA, Rapariz JM (2003) Valgus deformity after fibular resection in children. J Pediatr Orthop 23:55–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kang SH, Rhee SK, Song SW, Chung JW, Kim YC, Suhl KH (2010) Ankle deformity secondary to acquired fibular segmental defect in children. Clin Orthop Surg 2:179–185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morgan JD (1959) Blood supply of growing rabbit’s tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 41:185–203PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anil Agarwal
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Deepak Kumar
    • 1
  • Nargesh Agrawal
    • 1
  • Neeraj Gupta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Paediatric OrthopaedicsChacha Nehru Bal ChikitsalayaGeeta ColonyIndia
  2. 2.MayurVihar Ph-1 ExtIndia

Personalised recommendations