Patient-specific instrumentation for medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomies in the management of medial compartment osteoarthritis yields high accuracy and low complication rates: A systematic review.

High tibial osteotomy Knee Medial compartment osteoarthritis Opening wedge Patient specific instrumentation

Journal

Journal of ISAKOS : joint disorders & orthopaedic sports medicine
ISSN: 2059-7762
Titre abrégé: J ISAKOS
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101680867

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Historique:
received: 27 07 2022
revised: 15 01 2023
accepted: 25 02 2023
medline: 12 6 2023
pubmed: 18 3 2023
entrez: 17 3 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

There has been growing interest in the use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) to maximise accuracy and minimise the risk of major complications for medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomies (MOW-HTOs). Numerous studies have reported the efficacy and safety of implementing this technology into clinical practice, yet no systematic review summarising the clinical literature on PSI for MOW-HTOs has been performed to date. The aim of this investigation was to perform a systematic review summarising the evidence surrounding the use of PSI for MOW-HTOs in the management of medial compartment osteoarthritis. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were queried in October 2021 for studies that used PSI for MOW-HTOs when managing medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Primary outcomes included accuracy in coronal plane correction (mechanical medial proximal tibial angle), sagittal plane correction (posterior tibial slope), and mechanical axis correction (hip-knee-ankle angle [HKA], mechanical femorotibial angle, and weight-bearing line). Accuracy was defined as error between post-operative measurements relative to the planned pre-operative correction. A secondary outcome was the incidence of major complications. This review included eight different techniques among the 14 included studies. There was a weighted mean error of 0.5° (range: 0.1°-1.3°) for the mechanical medial proximal tibial angle, 0.6° (range: 0.3°-2.7°) for the posterior tibial slope, and 0.8° (range: 0.1°-1.0°) for the hip-knee-ankle angle. Four studies compared the correctional error of the mechanical axis between conventional techniques and PSI techniques. The comparative difference between the two techniques favoured the use of PSI for MOW-HTOs (standardised mean difference ​= ​0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.87; p ​= ​0.004). Among the 14 studies evaluated, four studies explicitly reported no major complications, while five studies reported a non-zero incidence of major complications. Among these nine studies, the weighted mean major complication rate was 7.1% (range: 0.0-13.0%). The findings of this present systematic review suggest that the use of PSI for MOW-HTOs leads to high accuracy relative to the planned corrections in the coronal plane, sagittal plane, and mechanical axis. Furthermore, these findings would suggest there is a low risk of major complications when implementing PSI for MOW-HTOs. Systematic review; IV.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36931505
pii: S2059-7754(23)00019-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jisako.2023.02.001
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Systematic Review Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

163-176

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Suhas P Dasari (SP)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Mario Hevesi (M)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Enzo Mameri (E)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Robert Ferrer-Rivero (R)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Luc M Fortier (LM)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Garrett R Jackson (GR)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Alec A Warrier (AA)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Bhargavi Maheshwer (B)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Harkirat Jawanda (H)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Zeeshan A Khan (ZA)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Benjamin Kerzner (B)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Robert B Browning (RB)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Safa Gursoy (S)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Jorge Chahla (J)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: Jorge.chahla@rushortho.com.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH