Advertisement

Applicability of a modified angular correction measurement method for open-wedge high tibial osteotomy

  • James Moore
  • Lydia Mychaltchouk
  • Frédéric Lavoie
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical potential of a new measurement technique for open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) based on the medial cortex opening (MCO) associated with the Miniaci preoperative planning technique.

Methods

A retrospective review of 97 cases of valgus-producing HTO that were performed between 2008 and 2013, using the intra-operative fluoroscopic mechanical axis technique, was carried out. The Miniaci-based measurement technique was then used as a theoretical point of comparison with the intent to compare the disparity between postoperative and ideal lower extremity (LE) mechanical axis with the measured disparity between postoperative and Miniaci-based planned MCO.

Results

A significant correlation was observed for the comparison of the disparity between postoperative and Miniaci-based planned MCO and the disparity between postoperative and ideal LE mechanical axis (0.53, P = 0.001). This would suggest that the MCO associated with the Miniaci preoperative planning technique would have resulted in a better alignment had it been the chosen method to guide the amount of osteotomy opening. No significant correlation was observed between perioperative and postoperative LE mechanical axis (n.s.), the variable on which the current technique is based, confirming the poor reliability of the fluoroscopic mechanical axis technique.

Conclusions

This study suggests a more accurate and precise technique of realizing the appropriate angular correction when performing a HTO, which could lead to better clinical outcomes.

Level of evidence

III.

Keywords

Arthritis High tibial osteotomy Knee 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Miguel Chagnon, Ph.D., for statistical advice.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    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 23(7):1949–1955CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brinkman JM, Lobenhoffer P, Agneskirchner JD et al (2008) Osteotomies around the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(12):1548–1557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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(11):1454–1459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brouwer RW, Jakma TS, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Ginai AZ, Verhaar JA (2003) The whole leg radiograph: standing versus supine for determining axial alignment. Acta Orthop Scand 74(5):565–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dancey C, Reidy J (2004) Statistics without maths for psychology. Prentice Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dugdale TW, Noyes FR, Styer D (1992) Preoperative planning for high tibial osteotomy. The effect of lateral tibiofemoral separation and tibiofemoral length. Clin Orthop Relat Res 274:248–264Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Azab HM, Morgenstern M, Ahrens P et al (2011) Limb alignment after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy and its effect on the clinical outcome. Orthopedics 34(10):e622–e628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 23:2041–2048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engel GM, Lippert FG III (1981) Valgus tibial osteotomy: avoiding the pitfalls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 160:137–143Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujisawa Y, Masuhara K, Shiomi S (1979) The effect of high tibial osteotomy in osteoarthritis of the knee. An arthroscopic study of 54 knee joints. Orthop Clin N Am 10(3):585–608Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giffin JR, Stabile KJ, Zantop T et al (2007) Importance of tibial slope for stability of the posterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. Am J Sports Med 35(9):1443–1449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guenoun B, Zadegan F, Aim F, Hannouche D, Nizard R (2012) Reliability of a new method for lower-extremity measurements based on stereoradiographic three-dimensional reconstruction. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:506–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hankemeier S, Gosling T, Richter M et al (2006) Computer-assisted analysis of lower limb geometry: higher intraobserver reliability compared to conventional method. Comput Aided Surg 11(2):81–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hankemeier S, Hufner T, Wang G et al (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(10):917–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hernigou P, Medevielle D, Debeyre J, Goutallier D (1987) Proximal tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis with varus deformity. A ten to thirteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69(3):332–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ivarsson I, Myrnerts R, Gillquist J (1990) High tibial osteotomy for medial osteoarthritis of the knee. A 5 to 7 and 11 year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72(2):238–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kendoff D, Citak M, Pearle A et al (2007) Influence of lower limb rotation in navigated alignment analysis: implications for high tibial osteotomies. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(8):1003–1008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim SJ, Koh YG, Chun YM et al (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(2):128–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kolb W, Guhlmann H, Windisch C, Kolb K (2012) High tibial open-wedge osteotomy: new techniques and early results. In: Osteoarthritis—diagnosis, treatment and surgery. Intech, pp 319–346Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lavoie F, Cresson T, Trudeau-Rivest E, Aissaoui A, De Guise JA (2010) Evaluation de routine de la morphologie tridimensionnelle des membres inférieurs par imagerie biplanaire simultanée basse-dose. In: Advanced course on knee arthroplasty: 3-D knee function. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier, pp 39–48Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee YS, Kim MG, Byun HW, Kim SB, Kim JG (2015) Reliability of the imaging software in the preoperative planning of the open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(3):846–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matthews LS, Goldstein SA, Malvitz TA, Katz BP, Kaufer H (1988) Proximal tibial osteotomy. Factors that influence the duration of satisfactory function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 229:193–200Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miniaci A, Ballmer FT, Ballmer PM, Jakob RP (1989) Proximal tibial osteotomy. A new fixation device. Clin Orthop Relat Res 246:250–259Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Noyes FR, Barber SD, Simon R (1993) High tibial osteotomy and ligament reconstruction in varus angulated, anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. A two- to seven-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 21(1):2–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Odenbring S, Berggren AM, Peil L (1993) Roentgenographic assessment of the hip–knee–ankle axis in medial gonarthrosis. A study of reproducibility. Clin Orthop Relat Res 289:195–196Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Osti M, Gohm A, Schlick B, Benedetto KP (2015) Complication rate following high tibial open-wedge osteotomy with spacer plates for incipient osteoarthritis of the knee with varus malalignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(7):1943–8194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reising K, Strohm PC, Hauschild O et al (2013) Computer-assisted navigation for the intraoperative assessment of lower limb alignment in high tibial osteotomy can avoid outliers compared with the conventional technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(1):181–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharma L, Song J, Felson DT, Cahue S, Shamiyeh E, Dunlop DD (2001) The role of knee alignment in disease progression and functional decline in knee osteoarthritis. JAMA 286(2):188–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sprenger TR, Doerzbacher JF (2003) Tibial osteotomy for the treatment of varus gonarthrosis. Survival and failure analysis to twenty-two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(A(3)):469–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van de Pol GJ, Verdonschot N, Van Kampen A (2012) The value of the intra-operative clinical mechanical axis measurement in open-wedge valgus high tibial osteotomies. Knee 19(6):933–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van den Bekerom MP, Patt TW, Kleinhout MY, van der Vis HM, Albers GH (2008) Early complications after high tibial osteotomy: a comparison of two techniques. J Knee Surg 21(1):68–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Moore
    • 1
  • Lydia Mychaltchouk
    • 1
  • Frédéric Lavoie
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopedic Surgery DivisionCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations