| Literature DB >> 27894175 |
Seong-Dae Yoon1, GuoFeng Zhang2, Hee-June Kim1, Byoung-Joo Lee1, Hee-Soo Kyung1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to compare the accuracy of Miniaci method using picture archiving and communication system (PACS) with a cable method in high tibial osteotomy (HTO).Entities:
Keywords: Accuracy; Knee; Osteotomy; Planning technique
Year: 2016 PMID: 27894175 PMCID: PMC5134794 DOI: 10.5792/ksrr.16.052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Knee Surg Relat Res ISSN: 2234-0726
Comparative Results of Cable Method and Miniaci Method Using PACS
| Variable | Cable method | Miniaci method using PACS | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of knees | 20 | 32 | |
| Age (yr) | 55.2±7.7 | 55±3.9 | 0.912 |
| Sex (M:F) | 5:15 | 5:27 | 0.404 |
| Weight bearing line (%) | |||
| Preoperative | 11.0±7 | 12.7±4.9 | 0.511 |
| Postoperative | 47.2±7.4 | 59.5±5.3 | 0.018 |
| Weight bearing line | |||
| Acceptable | 11 | 23 | 0.021 |
| Undercorrection | 8 | 3 | |
| Overcorrection | 1 | 6 | |
| mFTA (°) | |||
| Preoperative | Varus 8.9±3.7 | Varus 9.0±3.3 | 0.213 |
| Postoperative | Valgus 0.3±4.0 | Valgus 2.9±2.6 | 0.017 |
| PTS angle (°) | |||
| Preoperative | 9.5±2.3 | 9.8±2.5 | 0.675 |
| Preoperative | 10.4±2.2 | 10.5±2.3 | 0.869 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number.
PACS: picture archiving and communication system, mFTA: mechanical femorotibial angle, PTS: posterior tibial slope.
Fig. 1Cable method. (A) The center of the hip was identified with fluoroscopy. (B) The center of the ankle was identified with fluoroscopy. (C) The hip and ankle centers were connected using an electrocautery cord under fluoroscopic guidance. The osteotomy site was spread until the electrocautery cord was placed at the target point on the medial-to-lateral tibial plateau of the knee joint. Then, the metal plate was fixed.
Fig. 2Miniaci method using a picture archiving and communication system. (A) On the preoperative anteroposterior full-length lower limb radiograph, the lower limb weight bearing line (line 1, S) was drawn. After calculating the 62.5% point from the medial border along the longest medial-to-lateral width of the tibial plateau, an extension line connecting the hip center and the calculated point (line 2, S′) was drawn. Then, a line connecting the lateral tibial osteotomy site (D) and the center of the ankle joint (line 3, DS) was drawn. Another line connecting the osteotomy site and line 2 (line 4, DS′) was drawn. The angle formed by lines 3 and 4 was determined to be the predicted correction angle. (B, C) A predicted osteotomy line (O) was drawn from the proximal extremity of the fibular head to the predicted medial osteotomy site (approximately 4 cm inferior to the medial border of the tibial plateau). A predicted opening line (O′) was drawn from Line O at the determined correction angle (wedge angle, α). The predicted correction gap (wedge gap, mm) at the cortical bone of the posteromedial tibia was measured.
Difference between Preoperatively Predicted and Postoperatively Measured Wedge Angles and Gaps in the PACS Group
| Variable | Wedge angle (°) | Wedge gap (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Undercorrection (<62.5%, n=18) | Varus 1.8±1.9 | Varus 3.0±2.3 |
| Overcorrection (>62.5%, n=14) | Valgus 2.6±2.0 | Valgus 4.4±7.5 |
| Total | 2.1±1.9 | 3.6±5.2 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
PACS: picture archiving and communication system.
The overall differences of absolute values.