Limb length discrepancy


Differences in leg length can arise from many and varied aetiologies.

Evidence Essentials has previously addressed aspects of this topic:

Limb length discrepancy (LLD) may be of greater or lesser clinical significance, symptomatic or not, more or less innocuous.

An average LLD of 1.6 ± 2.3 cm (2.2% ± 4.5%) difference in leg length, probably has little real difference in gait between the short and long sides. It has also been shown, that LLD of 6.5 ± 2.8 cm, or a difference more than 5.5% between the legs, patients toe-walked on the short side

[Song KM, Halliday SE, Little DG: The effect of limb-length discrepancy on gait. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:1690-1698.]

Whilst many studies report correlation between LLD and back pain, and also scoliosis, causation has not been established [Hubbard EW et al, J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019;27:312-319 DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-18-00143].

Coincidentally, in the last two days, I have seen four paediatric cases with varied presentations of LLD:

Case 1: age 20 years, male

History of R femoral tumour at age 11 years (presented as night time leg pain). Excision resulted in LLD of 4 to 5cm. Following chemotherapy for the cancer, R shoe build-ups have been used throughout growth. He is now awaiting an orthopaedic lengthening procedure, including external Ilizarov ring fixation. He had had low back pain prior to the R shoe build ups.

Figure 1: Ilizarov apparatus, traction between rings adjusted for gradual bone growth.


Case 2: age 4 years, female

Developmental hip dysplasia, which unfortunately (and unusuallY0 was not detected until aged over 2 years. She is a third child, was not breech presentation, and birth weight 3.2 kgs. She had a mild limp, but this had been regarded as ‘muscular’. Once diagnosed, she underwent pre-operative traction, ORIF and spica cast, followed by Pavlik harness full-time for 3 months (until aged almost 3 years). She walked again independently at 3.5 years.

The surgeon referred her to me concerned about her L abducted angle of gait, and flatter L foot. This has been stabilised with adapted generic foot orthoses, resulting in L=R gait angles, and even PSIS in stance.

Figure 2: Radiographic view of hips, recovering L DDH at age 4 years.

Case 3: age 17 years, male

History of L femoral fracture at age 4 years. Underwent ORIF. Has had LLD approximating 2 to 3.5 cm between ages 5 to 15 years. In-shoe raises have been used periodically across growth. Clinically, LLD has now reduced to < 1cm, and no extrinsic adjustment is used. He is symptom free, and almost 190cm height.



Case 4: age 27, female

No history of either lesion nor injury, but an evident LLD from age 3 to 4 years. Back pain intermittently since teen age, but also a successful sporting history playing hockey, and very good general health. The LLD origin is shortness of L femur, presenting as Galeazzi’s sign, with no Trendelenburg sign. The shorter L leg is smaller in circumference (full length) and is non-dominant and hence, less ‘used’. LLD approximates 3 cm, and this patient is happy with her 1.5 cm L shoe build up, with in-shoe modifications providing another 1cm raise. She is asymptomatic, unless barefoot for longer periods (eg 2 to 3 days, provokes low back pain).


These cases represent only four aetiologies for LLD presentation: tumour




There are many other aetiologies, including: hemihypertrophy




[Evans AM, Paediatric Podiatry, Chapter 12; IN: Neale’s Disorders of the Foot and Ankle 9th Edition

Eds: Burrow, Rome, Padhiar; Elsevier, 2020; pages 298-338].

It is worth thinking about LLD from the perspective children’s legs growth. Early in development, leg length approximates 35% of height. By skeletal maturity, the legs account for almost 50% of height; and so, leg length accounts for a greater proportion of height as children grow older

[Iobst C: Growth of the musculoskeletal system, in Martus J, ed: Orthopaedic Knowledge Update Pediatrics, ed 5. Rosemont, IL, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2016, pp 59-68.]

Figure 3: Radiograph showing the percentage contribution of the femoral and tibial physes to bone growth, lower limb growth, and average annual growth of each physis.

[Hubbard EW et al, J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019;27:312-319 DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-18-00143].

The general recommendation for management of LLD is that LLD predicted to be less than 2 cm at skeletal maturity do not require surgical intervention; and LLD of 2 to 4 cm at maturity may have contralateral epiphysiodesis in the skeletally immature patient

[Vitale MA, Choe JC, Sesko AM, et al: The effect of limb length discrepancy on health related

quality of life: Is the “2 cm rule” appropriate? J Pediatr Orthop B 2006;15: 1-5].

Many studies have shown that healthy asymptomatic people can have up to a 2 cm LLD found incidentally. Hence, the common premise that discrepancies less than 2 cm at skeletal maturity can be left alone, observed, or use an in-shoe raise. Clearly, an unacceptable angular deformity in the short limb, or symptomatic LLD will requires (some form of) treatment

[Hubbard EW et al, J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019;27:312-319 DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-18-00143].

Please join the Green Podiatry campaign:

Evidence Essentials is non-profit, proceeds directed to APERF (Australasian Podiatric Education and Research Foundation)

Please keep an eye out for the Evidence Essentials blogs and enjoy the FREE resources


Thank you for reading this Evidence Essentials blog post.

Kind regards,

Angela Evans

Dr Angela Evans AM