Tibial tubercle osteotomy in revision total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review.
Extension lag
Knee flexion
Revision total knee arthroplasty
Stiff knee
Tibial tubercle osteotomy
Union
Journal
World journal of orthopedics
ISSN: 2218-5836
Titre abrégé: World J Orthop
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101576349
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jun 2020
18 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
28
02
2020
revised:
08
05
2020
accepted:
19
05
2020
entrez:
24
6
2020
pubmed:
24
6
2020
medline:
24
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) is a well-established surgical technique to deal with a stiff knee in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). However, several reports have described potential osteotomy-related complications such as non-union, tibial tubercle migration and fragmentation, and metalware related pain. To evaluate the literature and estimate the efficiency of TTO in RTKA in terms of osteotomy union, knee mobility and complications. MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were investigated for completed studies until February 2020. The principle outcome of the study was the incidence of union of the osteotomy. Secondary outcomes were the knee range of motion as well as the TTO-related and overall procedure complication rate. Fifteen clinical studies with a total of 593 TTOs were included. The TTO union rate was 98.1%. Proximal migration and anterior knee pain were the most common TTO-related complications accounting for 6.9% and 6.4% of all cases, respectively. However, only 2.2% of cases suffering from anterior knee pain needed hardware removal. Knee flexion was improved from 82.9° preoperatively to 100.1° postoperatively and total knee range of motion was increased from 73.4° before surgery to 97° after surgery. Stiffness requiring manipulation under anesthesia was recorded in 4.6% of cases. No major complications were reported. The current systematic review supports the use of TTO in RTKA, as it is associated with high union rate, significant improvement in knee motion and low osteotomy-related complication risk that rarely leads to secondary tibial tubercle procedures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) is a well-established surgical technique to deal with a stiff knee in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). However, several reports have described potential osteotomy-related complications such as non-union, tibial tubercle migration and fragmentation, and metalware related pain.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the literature and estimate the efficiency of TTO in RTKA in terms of osteotomy union, knee mobility and complications.
METHODS
METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were investigated for completed studies until February 2020. The principle outcome of the study was the incidence of union of the osteotomy. Secondary outcomes were the knee range of motion as well as the TTO-related and overall procedure complication rate.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifteen clinical studies with a total of 593 TTOs were included. The TTO union rate was 98.1%. Proximal migration and anterior knee pain were the most common TTO-related complications accounting for 6.9% and 6.4% of all cases, respectively. However, only 2.2% of cases suffering from anterior knee pain needed hardware removal. Knee flexion was improved from 82.9° preoperatively to 100.1° postoperatively and total knee range of motion was increased from 73.4° before surgery to 97° after surgery. Stiffness requiring manipulation under anesthesia was recorded in 4.6% of cases. No major complications were reported.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The current systematic review supports the use of TTO in RTKA, as it is associated with high union rate, significant improvement in knee motion and low osteotomy-related complication risk that rarely leads to secondary tibial tubercle procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32572366
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v11.i6.294
pmc: PMC7298452
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
294-303Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 Mar;138(3):387-399
pubmed: 29359256
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Sep;100(5):539-44
pubmed: 25082771
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 May;134(5):667-72
pubmed: 24563107
Bone Joint J. 2017 Jul;99-B(7):912-916
pubmed: 28663396
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Feb;19(2):167-74
pubmed: 14973859
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Dec;34(12):2999-3003
pubmed: 31401038
Int Orthop. 2015 May;39(5):879-85
pubmed: 25312056
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Sep;134(9):1311-5
pubmed: 25052772
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Nov;(356):16-21
pubmed: 9917662
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Apr;471(4):1305-18
pubmed: 23283675
Int Orthop. 2012 Aug;36(8):1609-13
pubmed: 22581352
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Knee. 2006 Dec;13(6):430-4
pubmed: 16956763
Acta Orthop. 2009 Aug;80(4):426-31
pubmed: 19562562
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000 Feb;10(1):2-11
pubmed: 10693606
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Mar;32(3):903-907
pubmed: 27692784
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep;27(8):1487-91
pubmed: 22608687
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Jun 30;9:98
pubmed: 18590542