Initial Standing of the Osteogenesis
Imperfecta Patient
Steve Baum, C.O.
Patricia Hazard, C.O.
Osteogenesis Imperfecta (O.I.) is more
commonly known as "brittle bone disease."
The bones are abnormally fragile and will
fracture with only minor trauma. Other features of O.I. are weakness, deformity and
dwarfism. Bowed long bones and barrel
shaped chest are also common.1 Children of
this disease have average to above average
intelligence and unimpaired hand function.2
The primary focus of this paper concerns a
specific case presented to Children's Hospital at Stanford. Rehabilitation Engineering
Center. At age two, RH., diagnosed with
O.I. type III, its most severe form, was presented to us with a prescription for "a total
containment orthosis for support in an upright position." At birth R.H. sustained approximately 22 fractures due to his fragile
nature, and great care was required to move
or position him. R.H. rests almost exclusively supine and has never borne weight on his
lower extremities. He can be held in an upright position, non-weight bearing for only a
short period of time before complaining of
dizziness. The physiologic advantages of being upright in an erect position include improved kidney and bladder drainage, better
cardiopulmonary function, and enhanced
bone strength from the effects of gravity on
the skeletal system.3,4 Furthermore, an upright posture will enable R.H. to continue
toward his developmental goals as a growing
child1 and allow him to participate in tabletop activities.
With these goals in mind, the orthotic
team met to discuss possible approaches to
R.H.'s case The summary of the design criteria is as follows. The orthosis must:
- be very secure due to the patient's fragile nature;
- have the ability to be gradually brought
up to the fully erect position because
patient shows low tolerance for an upright position;
- have total contact to avoid any uneven
loading on the patient's skeletal system:
and
- be portable so it can be taken with the
child to school, physical therapy, and
home.
Other considerations include ease of Operation for family members as well as school
personnel and capability of growth extension
since recasting could potentially cause additional skeletal fractures.
It was noted that none of the standing
frames that we knew of would be appropriate, because they did not satisfy our criteria.
Therefore, we had to create our own design.
Casting and Model Modification
The casting of the patient was typical
though extreme care was exercised to prevent any spontaneous fractures. We made
circumferential wraps of the lower extremities and separately cast the patient's torso in
a prone attitude through application of plaster splints to his back. Alignment marks for
proper adduction and flexion were made on
the cast negatives to assist in proper positioning of the orthosis. It should be noted at this
time that RH. was cast in his diaper, as this
is not standard practice. Since the patient
would wear a diaper in the orthosis, its additional width must be accommodated. Because the patient's head control was weak,
and the back of his head was flattened due to
prolonged supine periods, we also measured
for a contoured head support. We filled the
negative casts separately for ease of fabrication and transferred the alignment marks to
the positive models. The only atypical modifications on the positive models were done to
the T.L.S.O. In order to make the orthosis
more secure, we slightly straightened and
deepened the lateral walls. This also aided
the mother in positioning R.H. in the orthosis.
Fabrication
The orthosis is basically a non-articulating
C.T.L.S.H.K.A.F.O. with a baseplate (Figure 1
and Figure 2
). The description of these components starts at the baseplate and proceeds
proximally. The base (Figure 3)
was taken
from a stock Variety Village Parapodium
turned sideways. Attached to the base were
two shoe cups with Dacron® and Velcro®
fasteners and a small "U" shaped bracket for
a telescoping rod. We fabricated the rod
from hollow thin walled stainless tubing with
a similar but slightly reduced diameter tube
to fit inside the outer tube. These were both
drilled at 1-1/2" increments and held together
with a locking push pin. The rods acted in a
fashion similar to an adjustable crutch or
cane. The base is a separate unit which attaches to the C.T.L.S.H.K.A.F.O.
The remainder of the standing frame orthosis is the total contact shell. The posterior
portions of the K.A.F.O.s and T.L.S.O. are
high density polyethylene, 1/8" and 3/16" repectively. The head rest is 1/8" low density
polyethylene and the anterior tongues on
oth the K.A.F.O.s and T.L.S.O are 1/16"
polyethylene. The anterior and posterior
components are fastened with Dacron® and
Velcro® straps. The headrest was padded
with Aliplast® and attached to the T.L.S.O.
with a Milwaukee Brace aluminum anterior
superstructure upright. In turn, the
T.L.S.O. was attached to the K.A.F.O.s
with aluminum upright stock. Finally, another small "U" shaped bracket with a locking
push pin united the T.L.S.O. to the telescoping rod (Figure 4)
.
Donning and Doffing
The rationale behind making the orthosis
in two parts centered around its relative ease
of assembly and attachment to the child in
two separate and easily managed steps. The
donning procedure begins with laying the
C.T.L.S.H.K.A.F.O. section flat with all
anterior portions open (Figure 5)
. We placed
the child in the orthosis and secured all anterior shells. We prepared the base with the
telescoping bar retracted and the shoe cup
straps in their half-closed position. The patient, already secured in the orthosis, is attached to the base by slipping the foot sections into the shoe cups and attaching the
single push pin through its bracket (Figure
4)
, which unites the T.L.S.O to the telescoping rod. Finally, the shoe cup straps are fully
closed.
Conclusion
Subsequently, the patient has successfully
used this orthosis on a daily basis for over
three years and has recently needed to be
cast for a replacement. The mother is
pleased with the orthosis and has made only
minor requests for changes to the new orthosis, which includes the need for more air
holes to increase ventilation and padding of
the entire inner shell. The mother also requested dropping T.L.S.O. walls posteriorly
so she can don and doff the orthosis more
easily. However, this would make the orthosis less secure, so the anterior T.L.S.O.
tongue was made deeper to ensure security.
Many of the particular materials mentioned can be successfully substituted. Many
of our choices were made simply by the
availability of effective materials. Polypropylene could be used rather than high density polyethylene, or a section of adjustable
crutch substituted for the telescoping tube.
Obviously, many other options exist.
In summary, this standing orthosis system
is a practical and effective means of treating
young patients with severe O.I., and can be
fabricated with most of the materials that are
already on hand.
Acknowledgements
The design and development of this orthosis
was not the work of a single individual. It was the
result of a team effort by the staff of the orthotic,
prosthetic, and seating/mobility departments of
Children's Hospital at Stanford, Rehabilitation
Engineering Center.
Steve Baum, CO., is a staff orthotist and prosthetist at Children's Hospital at Stanford, Rehabilitation Engineering Center, 520 Sand Hill Road, Palo Alto, California.
Patricia Hazard, C.O. is the Director of Orthotics & Prosthetics at Shriners Hospital, Lexington, Kentucky.
References:
- Bleck, Eugene E., M.D., "Osteogenesis Imperfecta," Physically Handicapped Children: A
Medical Atlas for Teachers, 2nd Edit., Grune & Stratton, Inc., 1982, pp. 4t)5-412.
- Letts, Merv; Mercer Rang; and Steven Tredwell, "Seating the Disabled," Atlas of Orthotics,
2nd Edit., CV. Mosby Co., 1985, p. 474.
- Kruger, Leon M., "Children's Orthotics,"
Atlas of Orthotics, 2nd Edit., CV. Mosby Co.,
1985, p. 341.
- Wolff's Law: "Every change in the form and
function of a bone or of their function alone is
followed by definite changes in their internal architecture, and equally definite secondary alteration in their external conformation, in accordance with mathematical laws." He believed that
the formation of bone results both from the force
of muscular tensions and from resultant static
stresses of maintaining the body in the erect position, and these forces always intersect at right
angles. Excerpt from Rausch and Burke, Kinesiology and Applied Anatomy, 6th Edit., Lea and
Febiger, 1978, p. 10.
|
|