| Literature DB >> 24162762 |
Keerati Chareancholvanich1, Chaturong Pornrattanamaneewong, Rapeepat Narkbunnam.
Abstract
PURPOSE: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a surgical procedure used to correct abnormal mechanical loading of the knee joint; additionally, intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections have been shown to restore the viscoelastic properties of synovial fluid and balance abnormal biochemical processes. It was hypothesized that combining HTO with intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections would have benefit to improve the cartilage volume of knee joints.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24162762 PMCID: PMC4028547 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2735-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc ISSN: 0942-2056 Impact factor: 4.342
Fig. 1High tibial osteotomy was performed by the medial opening-wedge technique
Fig. 2Femoral and tibial articular cartilage structures of each subject were manually segmented in the sagittal plane slide by slide (range 80–100 slides per subject)
Fig. 3The 3D voxel models were generated and wrapped with a triangular mesh to create a virtual solid model of each specific structure
Fig. 4Study flow chart. IA intra-articular, HAs hyaluronic acid
Demographic and baseline characteristics of the study and control groups
| Characteristics | Study group ( | Control group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of male patients (%) | 2 (10) | 2 (10) | n.s. |
| Mean age ± SD (years) | 57.7 ± 5.3 | 58.8 ± 4.0 | n.s. |
| Mean BMI ± SD (kg/m2) | 29.1 ± 3.7 | 27.9 ± 4.2 | n.s. |
| Number of patients with bilateral osteoarthritis (%) | 17 (85) | 13 (65) | n.s.b |
| Number of left knees (%) | 10 (50) | 7 (35) | n.s.b |
| X-ray grade (Kellgren–Lawrence criteria) | n.s.b | ||
| Grade II (%) | 7 (35) | 8 (40) | |
| Grade III (%) | 13 (65) | 12 (60) | |
| Mean minimal JSW ± SD (mm) | 1.3 ± 1.0 | 1.6 ± 2.4 | n.s. |
| Mean joint range of motion ± SD (°) | 119.0 ± 12.6 | 124.5 ± 10.7 | n.s. |
| WOMAC score at the selection day | |||
| Pain (0–100) | 48.4 ± 15.6 | 46.6 ± 14.8 | n.s. |
| Stiffness (0–100) | 56.0 ± 26.7 | 55.8 ± 20.5 | n.s. |
| Physical function difficulty (0–100) | 53.6 ± 23.4 | 52.5 ± 16.7 | n.s. |
| Overall WOMAC (0–100) | 52.7 ± 21.2 | 51.5 ± 15.4 | n.s. |
JSW joint space width, WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, n.s. not significant
aIndependent t test
bChi square
Magnetic resonance imaging outcome: cartilage volume
| Cartilage volume (cc) | Study group | Control group | Valuea (Δ1 − Δ2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (SD) | 48 weeks (SD) | Δ1b (SD) | Baseline (SD) | 48 weeks (SD) | Δ2b (SD) | ||
| Total volume | 4.1 (0.8) | 6.2 (1.6) | 2.1 (0.9)** | 3.7 (1.2) | 5.0 (1.7) | 1.3 (1.3)** | 0.03* |
| Distal femur | 2.8 (0.6) | 4.4 (1.2) | 1.6 (0.7)** | 2.4 (0.9) | 3.6 (1.2) | 1.2 (0.8)** | n.s. |
| Medial femur | 1.0 (0.3) | 1.4 (0.5) | 0.4 (0.4)** | 0.9 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.4) | 0.3 (0.4)** | n.s. |
| Lateral femur | 1.8 (0.4) | 3.1 (0.9) | 1.2 (0.6)** | 1.6 (0.5) | 2.3 (1.0) | 0.8 (0.8)** | 0.04* |
| Tibial plateau | 1.3 (0.4) | 1.8 (0.5) | 0.5 (0.4)** | 1.2 (0.5) | 1.4 (0.6) | 0.2 (0.6) | 0.03* |
| Medial tibia | 0.6 (0.2) | 0.9 (0.3) | 0.3 (0.3)** | 0.5 (0.2) | 0.6 (0.3) | 0.2 (0.2)** | n.s. |
| Lateral tibia | 0.6 (0.2) | 0.9 (0.3) | 0.3 (0.3)** | 0.8 (0.4) | 0.7 (0.4) | −0.1 (0.4) | 0.03* |
| Patella | 1.2 (0.4) | 1.6 (0.5) | 0.4 (0.2)** | 0.9 (0.3) | 1.2 (0.4) | 0.3 (0.4)** | n.s. |
Δ1, 48 weeks—baseline (study group); Δ2, 48 weeks—baseline (control group)
* Significant difference at p < 0.05
** Significant difference at p < 0.01
aIndependent t test
bPaired t test
Clinical efficacy outcomes: WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index
| WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index | Baseline (SD) | Week 6 (SD) | Week 12 (SD) | Week 24 (SD) | Week 48 (SD) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pain score | ||||||
| Study group | 36.7 (16.5) | 26.8 (14.5) | 23.8 (15.1) | 16.5 (10.5) | 16.0 (13.5) | <0.001** |
| Control group | 39.9 (22.6) | 23.3 (16.7) | 19.1 (18.9) | 12.1 (13.2) | 15.3 (20.3) | <0.001** |
| | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
| Stiffness score | ||||||
| Study group | 43.3 (23.0) | 32.7 (18.0) | 26.9 (20.8) | 18.9 (14.2) | 21.7 (17.5) | <0.001** |
| Control group | 38.7 (21.8) | 24.7 (16.6) | 23.2 (23.2) | 15.9 (19.3) | 17.6 (21.4) | <0.001** |
| | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
| Function score | ||||||
| Study group | 47.1 (25.9) | 32.3 (18.4) | 28.5 (15.8) | 21.3 (10.8) | 20.3 (14.7) | <0.001** |
| Control group | 41.3 (24.0) | 23.6 (15.5) | 20.0 (21.4) | 17.0 (15.9) | 19.2 (21.0) | <0.001** |
| | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
| Overall score | ||||||
| Study group | 44.6 (21.0) | 32.3 (18.4) | 27.4 (13.8) | 20.1 (9.8) | 19.5 (13.4) | <0.001** |
| Control group | 40.8 (22.3) | 23.6 (15.5) | 20.0 (20.2) | 15.9 (15.2) | 183 (20.4) | <0.001** |
| | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
** Significant difference at p < 0.001
aRepeated measures ANOVA
bIndependent t test
Clinical efficacy outcomes: rescue medicine used
| Rescue medicine | Mean ± SD (tabs/day) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Study group ( | Control group ( | ||
| Diclofenac 25 mg | |||
| Week 6 | 1.40 ± 1.04 | 1.99 ± 1.22 | n.s. |
| Week 12 | 0.94 ± 1.39 | 1.47 ± 1.20 | n.s. |
| Week 24 | 0.20 ± 0.49 | 0.90 ± 1.00 | 0.009* |
| Week 48 | 0 | 0.17 ± 0.46 | n.s. |
| Total | 0.63 ± 0.59 | 1.1 ± 0.76 | 0.017* |
| Paracetamol 500 mg | |||
| Week 6 | 1.05 ± 0.96 | 0.71 ± 0.98 | n.s. |
| Week 12 | 0.61 ± 0.99 | 0.52 ± 0.69 | n.s. |
| Week 24 | 0.85 ± 0.25 | 0.12 ± 0.20 | n.s. |
| Week 48 | 0 | 0.51 ± 2.06 | n.s. |
| Total | 0.43 ± 0.44 | 0.44 ± 0.60 | n.s. |
* Significant difference at p < 0.05
aIndependent t test
Radiographic outcome of HTO surgery
| Outcomes | Study group ( | Control group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-operative FTA (°) | 168.7 ± 2.2 | 170.7 ± 2.6 | n.s. |
| Post-operative FTA (°) | 181.8 ± 1.9 | 182.2 ± 2.5 | n.s. |
| Correction anglea (°) | 12.45 ± 1.50 | 11.75 ± 1.3 | n.s. |
| Union rateb (%) | 100 % | 100 % | n.s. |
FTA femorotibial angle
aCorrection angle = post-operative FTA − pre-operative FTA
bUnion rate = evidence of a radiographic bridging callus or trabeculae between fragments at 1 year post-operatively
Fig. 5Osteotomy site showing good progression of bone healing at 1 year after surgery