Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 12, pp 2757–2765 | Cite as

Patient-specific cutting guides for open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: safety and accuracy analysis of a hundred patients continuous cohort

  • Samir Chaouche
  • Christophe Jacquet
  • Maxime Fabre-Aubrespy
  • Akash Sharma
  • Jean-Noël Argenson
  • Sebastien Parratte
  • Matthieu OllivierEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Introduction

Several recent studies have reported accurate and reliable use of patient-specific cutting guides (PSCG) for medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OW-HTO); however, a majority of these are small cases series or ex-vivo reports. The hypothesis of this study was that performing an OW-HTO with PSCG results in a reliable and accurate correction with good or satisfactory patient-reported functional outcomes at a mean of two years. We also hypothesized that the use of PSCG would not increase the rate of specific or non-specific complications.

Methods

In this single-centre, observational study, a prospective cohort of a hundred patients (age < 60 years with isolated medial knee osteoarthritis and significant metaphyseal tibial vara) were included between February 2014 and November 2017 to investigate the safety and accuracy of OW-HTO using PSCG. The accuracy of post-operative alignment was defined by the difference between the desired correction defined pre-operatively and the correction obtained post-operatively measured on CT scan (ΔHKA, ΔMPTA, ΔPPTA). Functional outcomes were evaluated by the difference between the value obtained in the pre-operative questionnaire and that obtained at the last follow-up (mean 2 years) using the KOOS and UCLA activity scale. Intra-operative and post-operative complications were recorded.

Results

The mean patient age was 44.17 ± 6.77 years; no patient was lost to follow-up at a mean of two years. The mean ΔHKA was 1 ± 0.95°, the mean ΔMPTA was 0.54 ± 0.63°, and the mean ΔPPTA was 0.43 ± 0.8°. No significant differences (all p values > 0.05) were observed between the desired correction defined pre-operatively and the correction obtained post-operatively (ΔHKA, ΔMPTA, ΔPPTA). An improvement of 27 ± 25 for the KOOS Pain, 28 ± 26 for the KOOS symptoms, 27 ± 28 for the KOOS ADL, 26 ± 33 for the KOOS sport/rec, 28 ± 38 for the KOOS QOL, and 2.6 ± 2.4 for the UCLA was obtained as compared with the pre-operative values (all p < 0.0001). No procedures observed were abandoned, and the PSCG was well positioned in all cases. The overall complication rate was 32% up to two years post-operatively, most of them being classed as minor events (28%).

Conclusion

Performing an OW-HTO with PSCG produces an accurate correction with good functional outcomes at a mean of two years. Furthermore, there is no increase in the rate of specific or non-specific complications. A study to assess the reproducibility of this technique, regardless of the surgical level, is needed.

Keywords

Open-wedge tibial osteotomy Patient-specific cutting guides Osteotomy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Patient consent was collected pre-operatively after they were informed of the procedure in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki declaration. A local ethics committee approved our study protocol prior to the investigation.

Conflict of interest

Matthieu Ollivier is an educational consultant for New-Clip, Stryker, and Arthrex.

Sebastien Parratte is an educational consultant for New-Clip, Zimmer, and Arthrex.

Jean-Noël Argenson receives royalties from Zimmer.

Samir Chaouche, Maxime Fabre, Akash Sharma, and Christophe Jacquet have nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Amis AA (2013) Biomechanics of high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 21:197–205.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2122-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bode G, von Heyden J, Pestka J et al (2015) Prospective 5-year survival rate data following open-wedge valgus high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 23:1949–1955.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2762-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferner F, Lutter C, Dickschas J, Strecker W (2019) Medial open wedge vs. lateral closed wedge high tibial osteotomy - indications based on the findings of patellar height, leg length, torsional correction and clinical outcome in one hundred cases. Int Orthop 43:1379–1386.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4155-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saragaglia D, Chedal-Bornu B, Rouchy RC et al (2016) Role of computer-assisted surgery in osteotomies around the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 24:3387–3395.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4302-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elson DW, Petheram TG, Dawson MJ (2015) High reliability in digital planning of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy, using Miniaci’s method. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:2041–2048.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2920-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nicolau X, Bonnomet F, Favreau H et al (2018) Précision de la correction dans les ostéotomies tibiales proximales de valgisation par ouverture médiale : comparaison entre table de Hernigou et méthode classique. Rev Chir Orthopédique Traumatol 104:S101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcot.2018.09.095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Munier M, Donnez M, Ollivier M et al (2017) Can three-dimensional patient-specific cutting guides be used to achieve optimal correction for high tibial osteotomy? Pilot study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 103:245–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.11.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Victor J, Premanathan A (2013) Virtual 3D planning and patient specific surgical guides for osteotomies around the knee: a feasibility and proof-of-concept study. Bone Jt J 95–B:153–158.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pérez-Mañanes R, Burró JA, Manaute JR et al (2016) 3D surgical printing cutting guides for open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: do it yourself. J Knee Surg 29:690–695.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1572412 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donnez M, Ollivier M, Munier M et al (2018) Are three-dimensional patient-specific cutting guides for open wedge high tibial osteotomy accurate? An in vitro study. J Orthop Surg 13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0872-4
  11. 11.
    Ahlbäck S (2096) Rydberg J (1980) [X-ray classification and examination technics in gonarthrosis]. Lakartidningen 77:2091–2093Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakamura R, Komatsu N, Murao T et al (2015) The validity of the classification for lateral hinge fractures in open wedge high tibial osteotomy. Bone Jt J 97–B:1226–1231.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B9.34949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-64 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplast 13:890–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van den Bempt M, Van Genechten W, Claes T, Claes S (2016) How accurately does high tibial osteotomy correct the mechanical axis of an arthritic varus knee? A systematic review. Knee 23:925–935.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.10.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marti CB, Gautier E, Wachtl SW, Jakob RP (2004) Accuracy of frontal and sagittal plane correction in open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 20:366–372.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2004.01.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saragaglia D, Roberts J (2005) Navigated osteotomies around the knee in 170 patients with osteoarthritis secondary to genu varum. Orthopedics 28:s1269–s1274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martineau PA, Fening SD, Miniaci A (2010) Anterior opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: the effect of increasing posterior tibial slope on ligament strain. Can J Surg J Can Chir 53:261–267Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nerhus TK, Ekeland A, Solberg G et al (2017) Radiological outcomes in a randomized trial comparing opening wedge and closing wedge techniques of high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 25:910–917.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3817-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ducat A, Sariali E, Lebel B et al (2012) Posterior tibial slope changes after opening- and closing-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a comparative prospective multicenter study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 98:68–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.08.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tseng T-H, Tsai Y-C, Lin K-Y et al (2019) The correlation of sagittal osteotomy inclination and the anteroposterior translation in medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy-one of the causes affecting the patellofemoral joint? Int Orthop 43:605–610.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3951-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saragaglia D, Blaysat M, Inman D, Mercier N (2011) Outcome of opening wedge high tibial osteotomy augmented with a Biosorb® wedge and fixed with a plate and screws in 124 patients with a mean of ten years follow-up. Int Orthop 35:1151–1156.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1102-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schröter S, Ihle C, Elson DW et al (2016) Surgical accuracy in high tibial osteotomy: coronal equivalence of computer navigation and gap measurement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 24:3410–3417.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-3983-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Han S-B, Lee J-H, Kim S-G et al (2018) Patient-reported outcomes correlate with functional scores after opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a clinical study. Int Orthop 42:1067–1074.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3614-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ekhtiari S, Haldane CE, de Sa D et al (2016) Return to work and sport following high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:1568–1577.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bastard C, Mirouse G, Potage D et al (2017) Return to sports and quality of life after high tibial osteotomy in patients under 60 years of age. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 103:1189–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.08.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim MS, Koh IJ, Sohn S et al (2018) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is superior to high tibial osteotomy in post-operative recovery and participation in recreational and sports activities. Int Orthop.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4272-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seo S-S, Kim O-G, Seo J-H et al (2016) Complications and short-term outcomes of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy using a locking plate for medial osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee Surg Relat Res 28:289–296.  https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.16.028 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Han S-B, In Y, Oh KJ et al (2019) Complications associated with medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy using a locking plate: a multicenter study. J Arthroplast 34:439–445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelissen EM, van Langelaan EJ, Nelissen RGHH (2010) Stability of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: a failure analysis. Int Orthop 34:217–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0723-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boonen B, Kerens B, Schotanus MGM et al (2016) Inter-observer reliability of measurements performed on digital long-leg standing radiographs and assessment of validity compared to 3D CT-scan. Knee 23:20–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.08.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chernchujit B, Tharakulphan S, Prasetia R et al (2019) Preoperative planning of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy using 3D computer-aided design weight-bearing simulated guidance: technique and preliminary result. J Orthop Surg Hong Kong 27:2309499019831455.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019831455 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Belsey J, Diffo Kaze A, Jobson S et al (2019) The biomechanical effects of allograft wedges used for large corrections during medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy. PLoS One 14:e0216660.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216660 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Slevin O, Ayeni OR, Hinterwimmer S et al (2016) The role of bone void fillers in medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 24:3584–3598.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4297-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samir Chaouche
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christophe Jacquet
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maxime Fabre-Aubrespy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Akash Sharma
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Noël Argenson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sebastien Parratte
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matthieu Ollivier
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Institute of Movement and LocomotionSt. Marguerite HospitalMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Aix Marseille University, APHM, CNRS, ISMMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations