Skip to main content
Log in

Digital planning of high tibial osteotomy. Interrater reliability by using two different software

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to determine the interrater reliability as well as the correlation of mediCAD® and PreOPlan® in deformity analysis and digital planning of osteotomies.

Methods

Digital radiographs were obtained from 81 patients planned to undergo an open wedge high tibial osteotomy. The JPEG files of the radiographs were imported to landmark-based software. Deformity analysis and planning of correction were performed by 1 experienced and 2 unexperienced observers. Osteotomy planning was aimed at correction to the predefined mechanical tibiofemoral angle of 3° valgus leg alignment. The interrater reliability of measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the confidence interval.

Results

The ICC of PreOPlan® was from 0.841 (mechanical lateral distal femur angle) to 0.993 (wedge-angle) and from 0.896 (joint line convergence angle) to 0.995 (mechanical tibiofemoral angle) of mediCAD®. The ICC of height of wedge-base was 0.979 with PreOPlan® and 0.969 with mediCAD®. Comparing PreOPlan® and mediCAD®, the ICC of the height of wedge-base of the observers was 0.966, 0.956 and 0.969, respectively.

Conclusions

The results show a high interrater reliability of digital planning software. Experience of the observer had no influence on results. Furthermore, a high interrater reliability and correlation of digital planning specific parameters was found. Surgeons need to master limb geometry measurements and osteotomy planning on digital radiographs as digital planning reports are used for intercolleagual correspondence, teaching purposes and as medicolegal documents. The digital planning software tested agrees with the actual demands and could be recommended for deformity analysis and planning of osteotomies.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic studies, Level I.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. El-Assal MA, Khalifa YE, Abdel-Hamid MM, Said HG, Bakr HM (2010) Opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy without bone graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(7):961–966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fujisawa Y, Masuhara K, Shiomi S (1979) The effect of high tibial osteotomy on osteoarthritis of the knee. An arthroscopic study of 54 knee joints. Orthop Clin North Am 10(3):585–608

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hankemeier S, Gosling T, Richter M, Hufner T, Hochhausen C, Krettek C (2006) Computer-assisted analysis of lower limb geometry: higher intraobserver reliability compared to conventional method. Comput Aided Surg 11(2):81–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(10):1328–1333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Heijens E, Kornherr P, Meister C (2009) The role of navigation in high tibial osteotomy: a study of 50 patients. Orthopedics 32(10 Suppl):40–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hernigou P, Medevielle D, Debeyre J, Goutallier D (1987) Proximal tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis with varus deformity. A 10–13-year follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 69(3):332–354

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ivarsson I, Myrnerts R, Gillquist J (1990) High tibial osteotomy for medial osteoarthritis of the knee. A 5–7 and 11 year follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Br 72(2):238–244

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Laprade RF, Spiridonov SI, Nystrom LM, Jansson KS (2012) Prospective outcomes of young and middle-aged adults with medial compartment osteoarthritis treated with a proximal tibial opening wedge osteotomy. Arthroscopy 28(3):354–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marx RG, Grimm P, Lillemoe KA, Robertson CM, Ayeni OR, Lyman S, Bogner EA, Pavlov H (2011) Reliability of lower extremity alignment measurement using radiographs and PACS. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1467-3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Niemeyer P, Schmal H, Hauschild O, von Heyden J, Sudkamp NP, Kostler W (2010) Open-wedge osteotomy using an internal plate fixator in patients with medial-compartment gonarthritis and varus malalignment: 3-year results with regard to preoperative arthroscopic and radiographic findings. Arthroscopy 26(12):1607–1616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paley D, Herzenberg JE, Tetsworth K, McKie J, Bhave A (1994) Deformity planning for frontal and sagittal plane corrective osteotomies. Orthop Clin North Am 25(3):425–465

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rozzanigo U, Pizzoli A, Minari C, Caudana R (2005) Alignment and articular orientation of lower limbs: manual versus computer-aided measurements on digital radiograms. Radiol Med (Torino) 109(3):234–238

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schröter S, Gonser CE, Konstantinidis L, Helwig P, Albrecht D (2011) High complication rate after Biplanar open wedge high tibial osteotomy stabilized with a new spacer plate (position HTO plate) without bone substitute. Arthroscopy 27(5):644–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sled EA, Sheehy LM, Felson DT, Costigan PA, Lam M, Cooke TD (2011) Reliability of lower limb alignment measures using an established landmark-based method with a customized computer software program. Rheumatol Int 31(1):71–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Specogna AV, Birmingham TB, DaSilva JJ, Milner JS, Kerr J, Hunt MA, Jones IC, Jenkyn TR, Fowler PJ, Giffin JR (2004) Reliability of lower limb frontal plane alignment measurements using plain radiographs and digitized images. J Knee Surg 17(4):203–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Takeuchi R, Umemoto Y, Aratake M, Bito H, Saito I, Kumagai K, Sasaki Y, Akamatsu Y, Ishikawa H, Koshino T, Saito T (2010) A mid term comparison of open wedge high tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. J Orthop Surg Res 5(1):65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The gratitude of the authors goes to the participants who made this study possible. Furthermore, the authors would particularly thank the staff of the radiology department of the BG Trauma Center Tübingen and Ulrike Schulz (medistat GmbH, Kiel, Germany) for her support in the statistical analysis.

Conflict of interest

The senior author (RvH) has been involved in the development of the PreOPlan® software; however, he has received no financial benefits. The other authors report no conflict of interest. SS, PL and RvH are members of the AO Joint Preservation Expert Group. The other authors report no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Schröter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schröter, S., Ihle, C., Mueller, J. et al. Digital planning of high tibial osteotomy. Interrater reliability by using two different software. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 189–196 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2114-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2114-3

Keywords

Navigation