Purpose: Retrospective study of the pathologycal epiphysiodesis cases in our centre between January 1996 and December 2006. Materials and method: This analysis is based on determine the cases distribution according to etiology, to identify the physeal brigde kind according to Ogden´classification and to consider the treatment depending on the deformity. Results: We present 61 pathologycal epiphysiodesis cases; according to etiology posttraumatic16, infectious 24, congenital 8, iatrogenic 4, tumoral 5, other causes 4. According to lesion localitation: distal femur 15, proximal femur 5, proximal tibia 14, distal tibia 12, calcaneous 1, foot phalanx 1, metatarsal 1, proximal humerus 2, distal humerus 1, distal radius 3, distal ulna 1, metacarpal 3, hand phalanx 2. The treatment was osseous distraction 15%, epiphysiodesis 8%, correct osteotomy 23%, physeal distraction 18%, desepiphysiodesis 3% and expectant attitude on the rest of cases (33%). Conclusions: This lesion don´t underestimate. The etiology es very varied and the first study method is the simple radiography and RMN is the auxiliary method, and finally, there are a lot of therapeutic alternatives, according to the age and the dimension of the lesion.

Purpose: Retrospective study of the pathologycal epiphysiodesis cases in our centre between January 1996 and December 2006. Materials and method: This analysis is based on determine the cases distribution according to etiology, to identify the physeal brigde kind according to Ogden´classification and to consider the treatment depending on the deformity. Results: We present 61 pathologycal epiphysiodesis cases; according to etiology posttraumatic16, infectious 24, congenital 8, iatrogenic 4, tumoral 5, other causes 4. According to lesion localitation: distal femur 15, proximal femur 5, proximal tibia 14, distal tibia 12, calcaneous 1, foot phalanx 1, metatarsal 1, proximal humerus 2, distal humerus 1, distal radius 3, distal ulna 1, metacarpal 3, hand phalanx 2. The treatment was osseous distraction 15%, epiphysiodesis 8%, correct osteotomy 23%, physeal distraction 18%, desepiphysiodesis 3% and expectant attitude on the rest of cases (33%). Conclusions: This lesion don´t underestimate. The etiology es very varied and the first study method is the simple radiography and RMN is the auxiliary method, and finally, there are a lot of therapeutic alternatives, according to the age and the dimension of the lesion.