Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 120–126 | Cite as

Change in limb length after high tibial osteotomy using computer-assisted surgery: a comparative study of closed- and open-wedge osteotomies

  • Dae Kyung Bae
  • Sang Jun Song
  • Hwan Jin Kim
  • Jae Wan Seo
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

Limb length changes were evaluated after closed- and open-wedge high tibial osteotomies (HTOs) using computer-assisted surgery.

Methods

A total of 78 closed- and 30 open-wedge HTOs were performed. The changes in limb length were evaluated on a navigation system and radiographs. The correction angle was defined as the difference between the pre and postoperative mechanical axis on the navigation system. The change in limb length with respect to the correction angle was analyzed.

Results

Following the closed-wedge HTOs, the mean changes in limb length based on the navigation system and radiographs were −1.3 ± 1.9 and −1.3 ± 10.7 mm, respectively, versus 6.2 ± 2.6 and 7.8 ± 2.9 mm after the open-wedge HTOs. The mean correction angle was 11.6 ± 3.2° for closed-wedge HTOs and 11.5 ± 1.9° for open-wedge HTOs. The correction angle did not affect the change in limb length after closed-wedge HTO, while the larger the correction angle required, the greater the increase in limb length after open-wedge HTO.

Conclusions

The change in limb length was negligible after closed-wedge HTO, while the limb length was increased slightly after open-wedge HTO. The possibility of limb lengthening must be considered carefully when determining whom to perform open-wedge HTO on, especially when a large correction angle is required.

Level of evidence

III.

Keywords

Knee Osteoarthritis High tibial osteotomy Closed wedge Open wedge Navigation Limb length 

References

  1. 1.
    Amendola A, Bonasia DE (2010) Results of high tibial osteotomy: review of the literature. Int Orthop 34:155–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asada S, Akagi M, Mori S, Matsushita T, Hashimoto K, Hamanishi C (2011) Increase in posterior tibial slope would result in correction loss in frontal plane after medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1610-1
  3. 3.
    Asik M, Sen C, Kilic B, Goksan SB, Ciftci F, Taser OF (2006) High tibial osteotomy with Puddu plate for the treatment of varus gonarthrosis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:948–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bae DK, Mun MS, Kwon OS (1997) A newly designed miniplate staple for high tibial osteotomy. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 56:167–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bae DK, Song SJ, Yoon KH (2009) Closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy using computer-assisted surgery compared to the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1164–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bito H, Takeuchi R, Kumagai K, Aratake M, Saito I, Hayashi R, Sasaki Y, Aota Y, Saito T (2009) A predictive factor for acquiring an ideal lower limb realignment after opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:382–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brosset T, Pasquier G, Migaud H, Gougeon F (2011) Opening wedge high tibial osteotomy performed without filling the defect but with locking plate fixation (TomoFix) and early weight-bearing: prospective evaluation of bone union, precision and maintenance of correction in 51 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97:705–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brouwer RW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, van Raaij TM, Verhaar JA (2006) Osteotomy for medial compartment arthritis of the knee using a closing wedge or an opening wedge controlled by a Puddu plate. A one-year randomised, controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1454–1459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dahl MT (2000) Preoperative planning in deformity correction and limb lengthening surgery. Instr Course Lect 49:503–509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellis RE, Tso CY, Rudan JF, Harrison MM (1999) A surgical planning and guidance system for high tibial osteotomy. Comput Aided Surg 4:264–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaasbeek RD, Welsing RT, Verdonschot N, Rijnberg WJ, van Loon CJ, van Kampen A (2005) Accuracy and initial stability of open- and closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a cadaveric RSA study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:689–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gebhard F, Krettek C, Hufner T, Grutzner PA, Stockle U, Imhoff AB, Lorenz S, Ljungqvist J, Keppler P (2011) Reliability of computer-assisted surgery as an intraoperative ruler in navigated high tibial osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green WT, Wyatt GM, Anderson M (1968) Orthoroentgenography as a method of measuring the bones of the lower extremities. Clin Orthop Relat Res 61:10–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habata T, Uematsu K, Hattori K, Kasanami R, Takakura Y, Fujisawa Y (2006) High tibial osteotomy that does not cause recurrence of varus deformity for medial gonarthrosis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:962–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hankemeier S, Hufner T, Wang G, Kendoff D, Zeichen J, Zheng G, Krettek C (2006) Navigated open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: advantages and disadvantages compared to the conventional technique in a cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:917–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hankemeier S, Mommsen P, Krettek C, Jagodzinski M, Brand J, Meyer C, Meller R (2010) Accuracy of high tibial osteotomy: comparison between open- and closed-wedge technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1328–1333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harper MC, Canale ST (1982) Angulation osteotomy. A trigonometric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 166:173–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hernigou P, Jaafar A, Hamdadou A (2002) Leg length changes after upper tibial osteotomy: analysis of different preoperative planning methods. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 88:68–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoell S, Suttmoeller J, Stoll V, Fuchs S, Gosheger G (2005) The high tibial osteotomy, open versus closed wedge, a comparison of methods in 108 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125:638–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iorio R, Pagnottelli M, Vadalà A, Giannetti S, Di Sette P, Papandrea P, Conteduca F, Ferretti A (2011) Open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: comparison between manual and computer-assisted techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1785-5
  22. 22.
    Iorio R, Vadala A, Giannetti S, Pagnottelli M, Di Sette P, Conteduca F, Ferretti A (2010) A Computer-assisted high tibial osteotomy: preliminary results. Orthopedics 33(10 Suppl):82–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jackson DW, Warkentine B (2007) Technical aspects of computer-assisted opening wedge high tibial osteotomy. J Knee Surg 20:134–141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jung KA, Lee SC, Ahn NK, Hwang SH, Nam CH (2010) Radiographic healing with hemispherical allogeneic femoral head bone grafting for opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Arthroscopy 26:1617–1624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kendoff D, Citak M, Pearle A, Gardner MJ, Hankemeier S, Krettek C, Hufner T (2007) Influence of lower limb rotation in navigated alignment analysis: implications for high tibial osteotomies. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:1003–1008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kendoff D, Koulalis D, Citak M, Voos J, Pearle AD (2010) Open wedge valgus tibial osteotomies: affecting the distinct ACL bundles. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1501–1507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keppler P, Gebhard F, Grutzner PA, Wang G, Zheng G, Hufner T, Hankemeier S, Nolte LP (2004) Computer aided high tibial open wedge osteotomy. Injury 35(Suppl 1):S-A68–S-A78Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kessler AC, Pugh LI, Stasikelis PJ (2005) Length changes in tibial osteotomy with angular correction. J Pediatr Orthop B 14:337–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim SJ, Koh YG, Chun YM, Kim YC, Park YS, Sung CH (2009) Medial opening wedge high-tibial osteotomy using a kinematic navigation system versus a conventional method: a 1-year retrospective, comparative study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:128–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luites JW, Brinkman JM, Wymenga AB, van Heerwaarden RJ (2009) Fixation stability of opening- versus closing-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a randomised clinical trial using radiostereometry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1459–1465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Magnussen RA, Lustig S, Demey G, Neyret P, Servien E (2011) The effect of medial opening and lateral closing high tibial osteotomy on leg length. Am J Sports Med 39:1900–1905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McCaw ST, Bates BT (1991) Biomechanical implications of mild leg length inequality. Br J Sports Med 25:10–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mihalko WM, Krackow KA (2001) Preoperative planning for lower extremity osteotomies: an analysis using 4 different methods and 3 different osteotomy techniques. J Arthroplasty 16:322–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mutimer J, Hammett RD, Eldridge JD (2007) Assessing leg length discrepancy following elastic stable intramedullary nailing for paediatric femoral diaphyseal fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127:325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    O’Toole GC, Makwana NK, Lunn J, Harty J, Stephens MM (2003) The effect of leg length discrepancy on foot loading patterns and contact times. Foot Ankle Int 24:256–259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oswald MH, Jakob RP, Schneider E, Hoogewoud HM (1993) Radiological analysis of normal axial alignment of femur and tibia in view of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 8:419–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sabharwal S, Zhao C, McKeon JJ, McClemens E, Edgar M, Behrens F (2006) Computed radiographic measurement of limb-length discrepancy. Full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph compared with scanogram. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:2243–2251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stuart MJ, Beachy AM, Grabowski JJ, An KN, Kaufman KR (1999) Biomechanical evaluation of a proximal tibial opening-wedge osteotomy plate. Am J Knee Surg 12:148–153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Raaij TM, Takacs I, Reijman M, Verhaar JA (2009) Varus inclination of the proximal tibia or the distal femur does not influence high tibial osteotomy outcome. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:390–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walsh M, Connolly P, Jenkinson A, O’Brien T (2000) Leg length discrepancy–an experimental study of compensatory changes in three dimensions using gait analysis. Gait Posture 12:156–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yen ST, Andrew PD, Cummings GS (1998) Short-term effect of correcting leg length discrepancy on performance of a forceful body extension task in young adults. Hiroshima J Med Sci 47:139–143PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dae Kyung Bae
    • 1
  • Sang Jun Song
    • 1
  • Hwan Jin Kim
    • 1
  • Jae Wan Seo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of MedicineKyung Hee University SeoulSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations