Is modified reverse step-cut osteotomy better than Yun’s reverse V osteotomy in paediatric cubitus varus deformity correction? A prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundVarious corrective osteotomy techniques have been described in the literature for correcting paediatric cubitus varus. But we are still in search of the perfect technique that gives maximum possible deformity correction and cosmetic appearance that satisfies parents with minimal complications. We compared the outcomes of two technically sound osteotomy techniques having minimal postoperative lateral condyle prominence described in the literature.Research question: Is modified reverse step-cut osteotomy (MRSO) better in terms of clinical, radiological, and cosmetic outcomes than Yun’s reverse V osteotomy (RVO) in pediatric cubitus varus deformity correction?MethodsIn total, 20 children with unilateral cubitus varus resulting from malunited supracondylar humerus fractures were included. Randomization was done by computer-generated random slips. A total of ten cases each were operated by MRSO and RVO techniques, respectively. Clinical, radiological, and cosmetic appearance assessments were done at the final two year follow-up and compared between the two groups.ResultsThe mean age of children in the MRSO and RVO groups is 9.9 years (3–16) and 8.6 years (3–16), respectively. The mean pre-operative carrying angle in the deformed elbow of MRSO and RVO group was − 20.5° and − 19.5°, respectively, and the mean pos-toperative carrying angle in the corrected elbow of MRSO and RVO group was + 6.8° and + 6.5°, respectively. Regarding the lateral prominence index (LPI), a positive correlation was noted between pre-operative and post-operative periods with a value of 0.855 and 0.844 (p value: 0.001 and 0.03, respectively) in both MRSO and RVO groups, respectively. However, the change was statistically not significant when compared between the two groups (p = 0.63). There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) when the clinical, radiological, and cosmetic outcomes were compared between the groups at final follow-up.ConclusionThe surgeon can choose either one of these techniques based on their expertise since the results of both the techniques are comparable in terms of clinical, radiological, and cosmetic outcomes.