| Literature DB >> 30967710 |
Rahul Ranjan1, Alok Sud2, Rajesh Kumar Kanojia2, Lakshay Goel2, Suresh Chand2, Abhinav Sinha2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medial close wedge, lateral open wedge, dome and "V" osteotomies are the commonly to correct the genu valgum (GV) deformity. However, the ideal method for the correction of coronal plane deformity is controversial. This prospective study is to evaluate the functional and radiological result of supracodylar "V" osteotomy to correct GV deformity.Entities:
Keywords: Bostman score; genu valgum; supracondylar “V” osteotomy
Year: 2019 PMID: 30967710 PMCID: PMC6415553 DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_547_17
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Orthop ISSN: 0019-5413 Impact factor: 1.251
Figure 1Clinical photograph of a patient with bilateral genu valgum. Her intermalleolar distance was 17 cm measured in standing position with both patella facing forward and knee touching each other
Description of clinical grading scale of Bostman
| Variable | Points |
|---|---|
| Range of movement (ROM) | |
| Full extension and the ROM >120° or within 10° of the normal side | 6 |
| Full extension, movement 90° to 120° | 3 |
| Pain | |
| None to minimal on exertion | 6 |
| Moderate on exertion | 3 |
| In daily activity | 0 |
| Work | |
| Original job | 4 |
| Different job | 2 |
| Cannot work | 0 |
| Atrophy, difference of circumference of thigh 10 cm proximal to the patella | |
| <12 mm | 4 |
| 12-25 mm | 2 |
| >25 mm | 0 |
| Assistance in walking | |
| None | 4 |
| Cane part of the time | 2 |
| Cane all the time | 0 |
| Effusion | |
| None | 2 |
| Reported to be present | 1 |
| Present | 0 |
| Giving way | |
| None | 2 |
| Sometimes | 1 |
| In daily life | 0 |
| Stair climbing | |
| Normal | 2 |
| Disturbing | 1 |
| Disabling | 0 |
| Total score | |
| Excellent | 30 to 28 |
| Good | 27 to 20 |
| Unsatisfactory | <20 |
Figure 2Antero-posterior radiograph of bilateral hip, knee and ankle showing different angle measurements. Line AB = Mechanical axis of the lower limb; AC = Mechanical axis of femur; DE = Articular surface of distal femur; FG = Anatomical axis of femur; HI = Anatomical axis of tibia. Tibiofemoral angle = Angle between line FG and line HI; lateral distal femoral angle = Angle between line AC and DE
Figure 3(a) Showing planned incision. X = adductor tubercle. (b) Exposure of distal femur after lifting vastus medialis anterior. Arrow shows epiphyseal vessels crossing transverse in the distal femur. (c) Showing planned osteotomy proximal to epiphyseal vessels. It is to be noted that anterior limb of the osteotomy is longer than the posterior. (d) Intraoperative picture showing how telescopy of proximal medial cortex was done in distal medial cortex was attempted with the help of thumb. (e) Immediate postoperative anteroposterior radiograph of knee showing osteotomy and its fixation with two cross K-wires. Arrow shows telescopy of proximal fragment into distal fragment
Figure 4Clinical photograph of the patient after full correction. Inset shows radiograph after final correction
Demographic details
| Parameters | Mean±SD | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 118 | 15.8±1.6 | 13-25 |
| Weight (kg) | 118 | 70.9±7.2 | 56-89 |
| Height (cm) | 118 | 162.6±4.9 | 149-173 |
| BMI | 118 | 26.8±2.5 | 17.4-33.9 |
| Duration of surgery (min) | 187 | 45.7±6.7 | 30-70 |
| Blood loss (ml) | 187 | 46.3±7.7 | 30-80 |
| Hospital stay (days) | 187 | 4.4±0.7 | 3-7 |
| Bostman score (preoperative) | 187 | 20.6±1.4 | 18-22 |
| Bostman score (postoperative) | 187 | 28.1±0.6 | 26-30 |
| Parents’ satisfaction | 118 | 95.3±1.1 | 92-99 |
| Union time (weeks) | 187 | 15.2±3.8 | 8-24 |
| Followup (months) | 118 | 27.7±3.3 | 24-36 |
BMI=Body mass index, SD=Standard deviation
Comparison between preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiological parameters
| Parameters | Preoperative | Postoperative | |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMD ( | 17.3±2.3 (12-24) | 3.9±0.7 (2-7) | 0.03 (<0.05) |
| CLTFA ( | 23.8±2.2 (18-33) | 4.5±0.8 (3-8) | 0.001 (<0.05) |
| RadTFA ( | 25.6±2.3 (19-36) | 6.1±0.8 (4-12) | <0.001 |
| LDFA ( | 76.6±2.1 (70-82) | 88.4±0.6 (86-90) | <0.001 |
| Boatsman score ( | 20.6±1.4 (18-22) | 28.1±0.6 (26-30) | <0.001 |
IMD=Intermalleolar distance, RadTFA=Radiological tibiofemoral angle, LDFA=Lateral distal-femoral angle, CLTFA=Clinical tibiofemoral angle
Correlation between clinical and radiological parameters with demographic variables
| Parameters | Height | Weight | BMI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-IMD | |||
| Post-IMD | |||
| Pre-CLTFA | |||
| Post-CLTFA | |||
| Pre-RadTFA | |||
| Post-RadTFA | |||
| Pre-LDFA | |||
| Post-LDFA |
IMD=Intermalleolar distance, RadTFA=Radiological tibiofemoral angle, LDFA=Lateral distal-femoral angle, CLTFA=Clinical tibiofemoral angle
Variables that affect the Bostman’s knee score and parent’s satisfaction
| Variables | Knee sco | Pa |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| Height | ||
| Weight | ||
| BMI | ||
| Pre-IMD | ||
| Post-IMD | ||
| Pre-CLTFA | ||
| Post-CLTFA | ||
| Pre-RadTFA | ||
| Post-RadTFA | ||
| Pre-LDFA | ||
| Post-LDFA |
IMD=Intermalleolar distance, RadTFA=Radiological tibiofemoral angle, LDFA=Lateral distal-femoral angle, CLTFA=Clinical tibiofemoral angle, BMI=Body mass index
Figure 5Showing postoperative radiograph of an 18 years old patient, in which intraoperatively osteotomy site was found unstable after two K-wires. So, two more K-wires were inserted
Figure 6Clinical photograph of a patient having infection at K-wire insertion site