Clinical outcomes of guider-assisted osteotomy compared to conventional pendulum-saw osteotomy in open wedge high tibial osteotomy: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Guider
Open wedge high tibial osteotomy
Pendulum-saw
Propensity score-matched
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jul 2024
25 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
15
05
2024
accepted:
09
07
2024
medline:
26
7
2024
pubmed:
26
7
2024
entrez:
25
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We developed a novel guider-assisted osteotomy (GAO) procedure to improve the safety of open wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) and aimed to compare its efficacy and complications with the conventional pendulum-saw osteotomy (PSO). This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing either GAO or PSO procedure in the OWHTO to treat varus knee osteoarthritis, who had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients were propensity score matched (PSM) in a 1:1 ratio based on demographic and clinical data with a caliper width of 0.02. The outcomes assessed involved the hospital for special surgery (HSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and the Intraoperative and postoperative complications. 199 patients were included in each group after PSM. The mean duration of follow-up was 38.3 ± 8.9 months. The GAO group had a shorter operation duration (104.5 ± 35.7 vs. 112.1 ± 36.0 min, p = 0.027) and fewer times of intraoperative fluoroscopy (4.2 ± 1.4 vs. 6.0 ± 1.4, p < 0.001). At the last follow-up, clinical scores for knee achieved significant improvements in both GAO and PSO groups: HSS (67.5 ± 10.5 vs. 90.2 ± 7.0, p < 0.001; 69.4 ± 8.2 vs. 91.7 ± 6.8, p < 0.001) and WOMAC (65.7 ± 11.6 vs. 25.2 ± 10.4, p < 0.001; 63.3 ± 12.2 vs. 23.8 ± 9.5, p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was observed between groups for any measures (p > 0.05). In addition, the intraoperative complications (0.5% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.068) and the postoperative bone delayed union and nonunion (1.0% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.032) were marginally or significantly reduced in the GAO versus PSO group. GAO demonstrates improvements in intraoperative radiation exposure and complications, with comparable short-term efficacy to PSO, and could be considered a viable alternative in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39054455
doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04909-3
pii: 10.1186/s13018-024-04909-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
432Subventions
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82172466
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Provincial Key Research and Development Program
ID : 192777113D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Organisme : The Hebei Department of Science and Technology High-Level Talent Team Construction Project
ID : 225A7703D
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ollivier B, Berger P, Depuydt C, Vandenneucker H. Good long-term survival and patient-reported outcomes after high tibial osteotomy for medial compartment osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;29(11):3569–84.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06262-4
pubmed: 32909057
Li OL, Pritchett S, Giffin JR, Spouge ARI. High tibial osteotomy: an update for radiologists. Am J Roentgenol. 2022;218(4):701–12.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.21.26659
Berk AN, Gachigi KK, Trofa DP, Piasecki DP, Fleischli JE, Saltzman BM. Early postoperative complications and Associated variables after high tibial osteotomy and distal femoral osteotomy: a 15-Year experience from a single Academic Institution. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(10):2574–82.
doi: 10.1177/03635465231183092
pubmed: 37417330
Xl M, Yc H. Chinese clinical practice guidelines in treating knee osteoarthritis by Periarticular Knee Osteotomy. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(5):789–806.
doi: 10.1111/os.13281
Philipp Lobenhoffer, Ronald J, van Heerwaarden AE, Staubli, Roland P, Jakob. Osteotomies around the knee indications-Planning-Surgical techniques using plate fixators. Switzerland: AO Publishing; 2008. pp. 92–8.
Tawy GF, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. Thermal damage done to bone by Burring and Sawing with and without irrigation in knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(5):1102–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.002
Spahn G, Hofmann GO, von Engelhardt LV, Li M, Neubauer H, Klinger HM. The impact of a high tibial valgus osteotomy and unicondylar medial arthroplasty on the treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;21(1):96–112.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1751-2
pubmed: 22076053
Wu Z-P, Zhang P, Bai J-z, Liang Y, Chen P-T, He J-S, Wang J-C. Comparison of navigated and conventional high tibial osteotomy for the treatment of osteoarthritic knees with varus deformity: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2018;55:211–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.03.024
pubmed: 29555521
Sardana V, Burzynski JM, Stone N, Weening BS, Zalzal PK. Short-term functional outcomes of computer assisted navigated high tibial osteotomy. J Orthop. 2019;16(2):166–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.02.016
pubmed: 30886465
pmcid: 6402292
Predescu V, Grosu A-M, Gherman I, Prescura C, Hiohi V, Deleanu B. Early experience using patient-specific instrumentation in opening wedge high tibial osteotomy. Int Orthop. 2021;45(6):1509–15.
doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-04964-z
pubmed: 33580315
Cerciello S, Ollivier M, Corona K, Kaocoglu B, Seil R. CAS and PSI increase coronal alignment accuracy and reduce outliers when compared to traditional technique of medial open wedge high tibial osteotomy: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;30(2):555–66.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06253-5
pubmed: 32910222
Jacquet C, Sharma A, Fabre M, Ehlinger M, Argenson J-N, Parratte S, Ollivier M. Patient-specific high-tibial osteotomy’s ‘cutting-guides’ decrease operating time and the number of fluoroscopic images taken after a brief learning curve. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;28(9):2854–62.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05637-6
pubmed: 31352498
Abdelhameed MA, Yang CZ, AlMaeen BN, Jacquet C, Ollivier M. No benefits of knee osteotomy patient’s specific instrumentation in experienced surgeon hands. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;31(8):3133–40.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07288-6
pubmed: 36538058
Martin R, Birmingham TB, Willits K, Litchfield R, LeBel M-E, Giffin JR. Adverse event rates and classifications in medial opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(5):1118–26.
doi: 10.1177/0363546514525929
pubmed: 24634450
Kim J, Seo BS. How to calculate sample size and why. Clin Orthop Surg 2013, 5(3).
Rosso F, Rossi R, Cantivalli A, Pilone C, Bonasia DE. Joint Line Obliquity does not affect the outcomes of opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy at an average 10-Year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2021;50(2):461–70.
doi: 10.1177/03635465211059811
pubmed: 34854734
Zehir S, Şahin E. Comparison of unilateral knee arthroplasty with high tibial osteotomy in Surgical treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis. Arch Iran Med. 2022;25(5):324–8.
doi: 10.34172/aim.2022.53
pubmed: 35943009
Kirsch JM, Puzzitiello RN, Swanson D, Le K, Hart P-A, Churchill R, Elhassan B, Warner JJP, Jawa A. Outcomes after anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2022;104(15):1362–9.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00982
pubmed: 35867705
Yoon J-R, Ko S-N, Jung K-Y, Lee Y, Park J-O, Shin Y-S. Risk of Revision following total knee arthroplasty or high tibial osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg. 2019;101(9):771–8.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00980
pubmed: 31045664
Barkan H. Statistics in clinical research: important considerations. Ann Card Anaesth 2015, 18(1).
Takeuchi R, Ishikawa H, Kumagai K, et al. Fractures around the lateral cortical hinge after a medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a new classification of lateral hinge fracture. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(1):85–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.06.034
pubmed: 21982387
Spitzer E, Ruzbarsky JJ, Doyle JB, Yin KL, Marx RG. A New Preoperative planning technique can reduce Radiation exposure during the performance of medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy. HSS J
doi: 10.1007/s11420-017-9591-3
pubmed: 30258329
Ogawa HMK, Akiyama H. The prevention of a lateral hinge fracture as a complication of a medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: a case control study. Bone Joint J. 2017;99–B(7):887–93.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B7.BJJ-2016-0927.R1
pubmed: 28663393
Lee OS, Lee YS. Diagnostic value of computed tomography and risk factors for lateral Hinge fracture in the Open Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy. Arthroscopy: J Arthroscopic Relat Surg. 2018;34(4):1032–43.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.310
Han SBCJ, Mahajan A, Shin YS. Incidence and predictors of lateral Hinge fractures following medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy using locking plate system: better performance of computed tomography scans. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(5):846–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.026
pubmed: 30733072
Yu JH, Wu DW, Zhu YB, et al. Effects of advanced bone flap versus no bone flap on the healing of osteotomy gap in high tibial osteotomy. Chin J Orthop Trauma. 2024;26(2):96–102.