Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Superior to Open Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy in Terms of Pain Relief for Patients With Osteoarthritis.
Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score
Knee stiffness
Open wedge high tibial osteotomy
Osteoarthritis
Pain relief
Total knee arthroplasty
Journal
Arthroplasty today
ISSN: 2352-3441
Titre abrégé: Arthroplast Today
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101681808
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
28
05
2020
revised:
10
09
2020
accepted:
14
11
2020
entrez:
1
2
2021
pubmed:
2
2
2021
medline:
2
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Globally, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely performed on patients with osteoarthritis. Meanwhile, open wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) has garnered attention in our country as a joint-preserving procedure. This study aimed to retrospectively compare the postoperative clinical outcomes of TKA and OWHTO for patients with osteoarthritis. We selected 94 patients (106 knees) who underwent OWHTO or TKA between 2013 and 2018, had complete clinical data, and were followed up for >2 years. Patients were classified into 2 groups depending on the procedure (TKA: n = 49; OWHTO: n = 45). Patients in the A (= arthroplasty) group were significantly older, with a worse range of motion (ROM) than those in the O (osteotomy) group. There were no significant differences regarding sex and body mass index between groups. Operative time, perioperative blood loss, knee ROM, and Japanese Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (J-KOOS) were compared between the groups. Significant differences were found between the A and O groups regarding operative time (120 ± 27.2 vs 80.3 ± 23.3 minutes), perioperative blood loss (505.4 ± 271.8 vs 322.6 ± 196.1 mL), knee ROM (flexion; 123.4 ± 16.3° vs 133.7 ± 12.8°), and J-KOOS for pain (87.4 ± 12.5 vs 78.1 ± 15.2 points) and symptoms (86.6 ± 12.3 vs 79.1 ± 13.3 points). There were no significant differences regarding other J-KOOS subscales. OWHTO involved shorter operative times and less blood loss. However, the O group reported less pain relief. The A group represents an older, likely less active patient population. Therefore, OWHTO is a possible joint-preserving treatment options in younger active patients who may not be interested in arthroplasty.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Globally, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely performed on patients with osteoarthritis. Meanwhile, open wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) has garnered attention in our country as a joint-preserving procedure. This study aimed to retrospectively compare the postoperative clinical outcomes of TKA and OWHTO for patients with osteoarthritis.
METHODS
METHODS
We selected 94 patients (106 knees) who underwent OWHTO or TKA between 2013 and 2018, had complete clinical data, and were followed up for >2 years. Patients were classified into 2 groups depending on the procedure (TKA: n = 49; OWHTO: n = 45). Patients in the A (= arthroplasty) group were significantly older, with a worse range of motion (ROM) than those in the O (osteotomy) group. There were no significant differences regarding sex and body mass index between groups. Operative time, perioperative blood loss, knee ROM, and Japanese Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (J-KOOS) were compared between the groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Significant differences were found between the A and O groups regarding operative time (120 ± 27.2 vs 80.3 ± 23.3 minutes), perioperative blood loss (505.4 ± 271.8 vs 322.6 ± 196.1 mL), knee ROM (flexion; 123.4 ± 16.3° vs 133.7 ± 12.8°), and J-KOOS for pain (87.4 ± 12.5 vs 78.1 ± 15.2 points) and symptoms (86.6 ± 12.3 vs 79.1 ± 13.3 points). There were no significant differences regarding other J-KOOS subscales.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
OWHTO involved shorter operative times and less blood loss. However, the O group reported less pain relief. The A group represents an older, likely less active patient population. Therefore, OWHTO is a possible joint-preserving treatment options in younger active patients who may not be interested in arthroplasty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33521190
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.11.010
pii: S2352-3441(20)30223-5
pmc: PMC7818628
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
7-10Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Jan;476(1):126-134
pubmed: 29529627
Arthroscopy. 2018 Jul;34(7):2158-2169.e2
pubmed: 29685834
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020 Jan-Apr;28(1):2309499019895636
pubmed: 31916479
Arthrosc Tech. 2014 Jul 07;3(4):e431-7
pubmed: 25264504
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Mar;28(3):742-750
pubmed: 30196434
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jan;33(1):273-276
pubmed: 28939034
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Nov 03;1:64
pubmed: 14613558
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Sep;15(9):1094-100
pubmed: 17342550
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Dec;31(12):2668-2671
pubmed: 27480824
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016 Apr;26(3):305-10
pubmed: 26922063
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Nov;25(11):3611-3619
pubmed: 27387308
J Orthop Sci. 2011 Sep;16(5):516-23
pubmed: 21766211
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Nov;452:28-34
pubmed: 16936585
Knee. 2017 Mar;24(2):380-389
pubmed: 28081898
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Dec;41(12):2849-57
pubmed: 24077132
Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393(10172):655-663
pubmed: 30782341
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014 Feb;28(1):73-91
pubmed: 24792946
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jan;41(1):80-6
pubmed: 23108639
Knee. 2004 Dec;11(6):457-61
pubmed: 15581764
Arthrosc Tech. 2019 Jun 02;8(6):e655-e662
pubmed: 31334025
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Aug;28(2):88-96
pubmed: 9699158
Arthroscopy. 2017 Apr;33(4):811-816
pubmed: 28043753
Int Orthop. 2019 Dec;43(12):2757-2765
pubmed: 31273430
J Orthop. 2019 Feb 28;16(2):166-170
pubmed: 30886465
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Aug 1;100(15):1265-1274
pubmed: 30063588
Arthroscopy. 2009 Jan;25(1):46-53
pubmed: 19111218
Knee. 2014 Mar;21(2):456-61
pubmed: 24411462