Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
Closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy is more advantageous to maintain the correction than open-wedge high tibial osteotomy in osteopenic patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Song Sang Jun, Yoon Kyoung Ho, Kim Kang Il, Park Cheol Hee
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of correction loss and survival rate between closed-wedge and open-wedge high tibial osteotomies (CWHTO and OWHTO, respectively) in patients with osteopenic and normal bone.
METHODS: Retrospective review was conducted for 115 CWHTOs and 119 OWHTOs performed in osteopenic patients [- 2.5 < Bone mineral density (BMD) T scores ≤ - 1] and 136 CWHTOs and 138 OWHTOs performed in normal patients (BMD T score > - 1) from 2012 to 2019. Demographics were not different between CW- and OWHTOs in osteopenic and normal patients (n.s., respectively). Radiographically, the mechanical axis (MA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and posterior tibial slope (PTS) were evaluated pre- and postoperatively (2 weeks after HTO). The occurrence of hinge fractures was investigated using radiographs taken on the operation day. The correction change was calculated as the last follow-up value minus postoperative MPTA. Correction loss was defined when the correction change was ≥ 3°. The survival rate (failure: correction loss) was investigated.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the pre and postoperative MA, MPTA, PTS, and value changes between CW- and OWHTOs in osteopenic and normal patients (n.s., respectively); the incidence of unstable hinge fractures also did not differ significantly (CWHTO vs. OWHTO = 7 vs. 7.6% in osteopenic patients; 2.9 vs. 3.6% in normal patients; n.s., respectively). The average correction change (CWHTO = - 0.6°, OWHTO = - 1.3°, p = 0.007), incidence of correction loss (CWHTO = 1.7%, OWHTO = 9.2%, p = 0.019), and 5-year survival rates (CWHTO = 98.3%, OWHTO = 90.8%, p = 0.013) differed significantly in osteopenic patients; there were no significant differences in these results in normal patients (n.s., respectively).
CONCLUSION: CWHTO was more advantageous than OWHTO regarding the correction loss in osteopenic patients. Intra- and postoperative care that consider poor bone quality will be required when performing OWHTOs in osteopenic patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
METHODS: Retrospective review was conducted for 115 CWHTOs and 119 OWHTOs performed in osteopenic patients [- 2.5 < Bone mineral density (BMD) T scores ≤ - 1] and 136 CWHTOs and 138 OWHTOs performed in normal patients (BMD T score > - 1) from 2012 to 2019. Demographics were not different between CW- and OWHTOs in osteopenic and normal patients (n.s., respectively). Radiographically, the mechanical axis (MA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and posterior tibial slope (PTS) were evaluated pre- and postoperatively (2 weeks after HTO). The occurrence of hinge fractures was investigated using radiographs taken on the operation day. The correction change was calculated as the last follow-up value minus postoperative MPTA. Correction loss was defined when the correction change was ≥ 3°. The survival rate (failure: correction loss) was investigated.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the pre and postoperative MA, MPTA, PTS, and value changes between CW- and OWHTOs in osteopenic and normal patients (n.s., respectively); the incidence of unstable hinge fractures also did not differ significantly (CWHTO vs. OWHTO = 7 vs. 7.6% in osteopenic patients; 2.9 vs. 3.6% in normal patients; n.s., respectively). The average correction change (CWHTO = - 0.6°, OWHTO = - 1.3°, p = 0.007), incidence of correction loss (CWHTO = 1.7%, OWHTO = 9.2%, p = 0.019), and 5-year survival rates (CWHTO = 98.3%, OWHTO = 90.8%, p = 0.013) differed significantly in osteopenic patients; there were no significant differences in these results in normal patients (n.s., respectively).
CONCLUSION: CWHTO was more advantageous than OWHTO regarding the correction loss in osteopenic patients. Intra- and postoperative care that consider poor bone quality will be required when performing OWHTOs in osteopenic patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.