PURPOSE: The first purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcome of two different locking plates used for valgus-producing medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO). The second purpose was to histologically evaluate peek-carbon wear for biocompatibility. METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive patients undergoing open-wedge HTO using the first-generation PEEKPower HTO-Plate® (Group I) were matched with 26 patients after open-wedge HTO with the TomoFix™ plate (Group II). Clinical scores (visual analogue scale for pain, WOMAC, Lysholm score) were obtained preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of 24 months postoperatively. Fixation stability was evaluated radiographically by comparing the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and tibial slope 2 days after open-wedge HTO and after implant removal. Tissue samples of Group I were collected at the time of implant removal for histologic evaluation. RESULTS: Implant-related complications occurred in 15 % (n = 4) of Group I and 0 % of Group II. Out of them, 3 implant replacements were excluded from statistical analyses. After a final median follow-up of 25 months (range 24-31), the clinical scores in both groups showed significant improvements compared to preoperatively (visual analogue scale, WOMAC, Lysholm score; p < 0.001), without significant group differences (visual analogue scale, n.s.; WOMAC, n.s.; Lysholm score, n.s.). No significant differences between baseline and follow-up measurements for MPTA and tibial slope were observed within each group (MPTA: Gr. I, n.s.; Gr. II, n.s.; tibial slope: Gr. I, n.s.; Gr. II, n.s.) or between the two groups (MPTA, n.s.; tibial slope, n.s.). In histologic samples, CF PEEK abrasion did not induce inflammation or tissue necrosis. CONCLUSION: The first-generation PEEKPower HTO-Plate® provided a higher rate of implant-related complications compared to the TomoFix™ plate at a minimum follow-up of 24 months after valgus-producing open-wedge HTO. Therefore, it is not recommended to use the first-generation PEEKPower HTO-Plate® in the clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: The first purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcome of two different locking plates used for valgus-producing medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO). The second purpose was to histologically evaluate peek-carbon wear for biocompatibility. METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive patients undergoing open-wedge HTO using the first-generation PEEKPower HTO-Plate® (Group I) were matched with 26 patients after open-wedge HTO with the TomoFix™ plate (Group II). Clinical scores (visual analogue scale for pain, WOMAC, Lysholm score) were obtained preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of 24 months postoperatively. Fixation stability was evaluated radiographically by comparing the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and tibial slope 2 days after open-wedge HTO and after implant removal. Tissue samples of Group I were collected at the time of implant removal for histologic evaluation. RESULTS: Implant-related complications occurred in 15 % (n = 4) of Group I and 0 % of Group II. Out of them, 3 implant replacements were excluded from statistical analyses. After a final median follow-up of 25 months (range 24-31), the clinical scores in both groups showed significant improvements compared to preoperatively (visual analogue scale, WOMAC, Lysholm score; p < 0.001), without significant group differences (visual analogue scale, n.s.; WOMAC, n.s.; Lysholm score, n.s.). No significant differences between baseline and follow-up measurements for MPTA and tibial slope were observed within each group (MPTA: Gr. I, n.s.; Gr. II, n.s.; tibial slope: Gr. I, n.s.; Gr. II, n.s.) or between the two groups (MPTA, n.s.; tibial slope, n.s.). In histologic samples, CF PEEK abrasion did not induce inflammation or tissue necrosis. CONCLUSION: The first-generation PEEKPower HTO-Plate® provided a higher rate of implant-related complications compared to the TomoFix™ plate at a minimum follow-up of 24 months after valgus-producing open-wedge HTO. Therefore, it is not recommended to use the first-generation PEEKPower HTO-Plate® in the clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Alan Getgood; Brett Collins; Konrad Slynarski; Emilia Kurowska; David Parker; Lars Engebretsen; Peter B MacDonald; Robert Litchfield Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Catherine Hui; Lucy J Salmon; Alison Kok; Heidi A Williams; Niels Hockers; Willem M van der Tempel; Rishi Chana; Leo A Pinczewski Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Stefan Hinterwimmer; Knut Beitzel; Jochen Paul; Chlodwig Kirchhoff; Martin Sauerschnig; Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe; Andreas B Imhoff Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: S Schröter; A Ateschrang; W Löwe; H Nakayama; U Stöckle; C Ihle Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Mehmet Akif Altay; Cemil Ertürk; Nuray Altay; Ahmet Şükrü Mercan; Serkan Sipahioğlu; Ali Murat Kalender; Uğur Erdem Işıkan Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Chase S Dean; Jorge Chahla; Lauren M Matheny; Tyler R Cram; Samuel G Moulton; Grant J Dornan; Justin J Mitchell; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Mario Hevesi; Jeffrey A Macalena; Isabella T Wu; Christopher L Camp; Bruce A Levy; Elizabeth A Arendt; Michael J Stuart; Aaron J Krych Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Tim Saier; Philipp Minzlaff; Matthias J Feucht; Lena Lämmle; Maike Burghoff; Christoph Ihle; Andreas B Imhoff; Stefan Hinterwimmer Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 4.342