| Literature DB >> 31502065 |
Elena Nemecek1, Catharina Chiari1, Alexander Valentinitsch2, Franz Kainberger2, Gerhard Hobusch1, Alexander Kolb1, Lena Hirtler3, Carmen Trost1, Slobodan Vukicevic4, Reinhard Windhager5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze radiographic imaging techniques and to quantify bone ossification in the osteotomy gap after high tibial osteotomy.Entities:
Keywords: Analysis of osteotomy gap; Bone healing; Bone ossification; CT scan analysis; Radiographic analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31502065 PMCID: PMC6908562 DOI: 10.1007/s00508-019-01541-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr ISSN: 0043-5325 Impact factor: 1.704
Fig. 1Measurement techniques on length of osteotomy (blue line) and medial osteotomy width (black line) are displayed in picture a; measurement technique of tibial slope and osteotomy slope (blue lines) are shown in picture b. In axial CT sequences, rotational offset of the plate (referring to the tibial tuberosity) was measured (red lines) (c)
Fig. 2Division of gap into 4 zones for further radiological evaluation
Fig. 3The osteotomy wedge is segmented manually at baseline (red) and registered automatically at follow-up (green) examinations using the plate and screws as reference points
Fig. 4a The conventional AP radiography of the cadaveric leg shows tibial overlap of the posterior tibia in the gap (b) exact representation of the osteotomy gap is achieved with 20° of internal rotation and 30° of flexion in the knee joint
Radiological measurement on human specimens showing osteotomy width, tibial and osteotomy slope as well as rotational offset of the plate and tibial overlap at different degrees of flexion
| Specimen | Internal rotation of plate | Osteotomy width | Tibial slope | Osteotomy slope | Tibial overlap in flexion of the knee in | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (°) | (mm) | (°) | (°) | 0° | 10° | 20° | 30° | 40° | |
| 1 | 22.3 | 13.9 | 7.7 | 22.7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 2 | 15 | 13.2 | 7.4 | 9.2 | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 3 | 23.9 | 10.9 | 17.2 | 16 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 4 | 32.5 | 10.7 | 9.7 | 17.9 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 5 | 31.6 | 12 | 9.3 | 20 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Mean | 25.1 | 12.1 | 10.3 | 17.2 | – | – | – | – | – |
Fig. 5CT scans of cadaveric leg can bypass the obstacle of the overlap of the tibial tuberosity into the osteotomy gap (a shows an AP section image, b shows an axial section image and c shows a 3D reconstruction)
Fig. 6Radiological appearance of the osteotomy gap. a postoperatively, b 6 weeks postoperatively and c 12 weeks postoperatively with new bone healing spreading from lateral to the medial osteotomy side. The gap is visualized perfectly by flexion and inward rotation of the knee to rule out the overlap of the osteotomy gap and the plate
Results of evaluation of the X‑rays and comparison of values between different time points. Values of parameters are expressed as means (and range); for homogeneous variances, a one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests were used. For parameters with inhomogeneous variances (sclerosis and trabecular structure), the Friedman test as well as the Wilcoxon test were used. Significant p-values (p-value <0.005) are marked in bold type
| Parameter | Mean (range) | ANOVA/Friedman | Post hoc tests | (Bonferroni/Wilcoxon) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Week 6 | Week 12 | Day 1: week 6 | Week 6: week 12 | Day 1: week 12 | ||
| Length of osteotomy | 73.34 mm | 72.68 mm | 72.61 mm | 0.945 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| (62.3–83.3 mm) | (61.4–83.8 mm) | (63–82.9 mm) | – | – | – | – | |
| Length of fused | 14.21 mm | 37.82 mm | 50.68 mm | ||||
| Osteotomy | (3.3–29.2 mm) | (22.3–51.7 mm) | (24.8–66.1 mm) | – | – | – | – |
| Width of osteotomy | 10.84 mm | 9.58 mm | 8.18 mm | 0.467 | 0.397 | ||
| (7.4–16.7 mm) | (7.6–13.6 mm) | (6.1–10.9 mm) | – | – | – | – | |
| Schröter score | 19.14% | 52% | 70.6% | ||||
| (4.4–34.8%) | (36–72.1%) | (36.3–96.1%) | – | – | – | – | |
| Zone 1 | 19.2 mm2 | 10.1 mm2 | 1.6 mm2 | 0.270 | 0.275 | ||
| (0–51.2 mm2) | (0–31.8 mm2) | (0–14.1 mm2) | – | – | – | – | |
| Zone 2 | 64.9 mm2 | 49.2 mm2 | 20.2 mm2 | 0.663 | 0.082 | ||
| (6.9–123.4 mm2) | (9.4–106.8 mm2) | (0–77.1 mm2) | – | – | – | – | |
| Zone 3 | 92.6 mm2 | 68.2 mm2 | 35.8 mm2 | 0.339 | 0.115 | ||
| (29.3–154.1 mm2) | (17.8–118.3 mm2) | (0–88.4 mm2) | – | – | – | – | |
| Zone 4 | 150.4 mm2 | 115.3 mm2 | 80.6 mm2 | 0.082 | 0.086 | ||
| (68.3–284.6 mm2) | (51.7–156.2 mm2) | (34–148 mm2) | – | – | – | – | |
| Sclerosis | – | – | – | 0.235b | |||
| (0–1) | (0–1) | (0–2) | – | – | – | – | |
| Trabecular | – | – | – | ||||
| Structure | 0 | (0–1) | (1–2) | – | – | – | – |
aCalculated using the Friedman test
bCalculated using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test
Interobserver differences of radiological measurements were calculated using the Friedman test. The median (50th percentile) is displayed for each observer. P-values <0.05 are marked in bold numbers
| Parameter | Observer 1 | Observer 2 | Observer 3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length of osteotomy | Day 1 | 70.250 | 77.850 | 72.650 | |
| Week 6 | 70.300 | 75.850 | 71.350 | 0.191 | |
| Week 12 | 69.00 | 74.000 | 72.250 | 0.108 | |
| Length of fused osteotomy | Day 1 | 7.150 | 16.050 | 16.300 | |
| Week 6 | 28.100 | 44.750 | 35.550 | ||
| Week 12 | 43.150 | 59.750 | 58.550 | 0.191 | |
| Medial width of osteotomy | Day 1 | 11.000 | 11.100 | 11.350 | 0.525 |
| Week 6 | 7.950 | 9.100 | 9.300 | 0.751 | |
| Week 12 | 7.900 | 8.500 | 7.800 | 0.406 | |
| Non-ossified area | |||||
| Zone 1 | Day 1 | 13.250 | 15.500 | 14.450 | 0.819 |
| Week 6 | 2.750 | 7.600 | 8.600 | 0.321 | |
| Week 12 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.111 | |
| Zone 2 | Day 1 | 70.850 | 65.350 | 63.500 | 0.382 |
| Week 6 | 56.000 | 38.200 | 35.800 | 0.275 | |
| Week 12 | 8.700 | 10.000 | 9.950 | 0.547 | |
| Zone 3 | Day 1 | 129.500 | 56.600 | 69.200 | |
| Week 6 | 80.450 | 32.400 | 57.350 | 0.080 | |
| Week 12 | 38.600 | 15.150 | 25.200 | 0.906 | |
| Zone 4 | Day 1 | 151.000 | 161.400 | 151.650 | 0.080 |
| Week 6 | 116.500 | 129.350 | 98.550 | ||
| Week 12 | 73.550 | 87.500 | 67.850 | ||
| Sclerosis | Day 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.368 |
| Week 6 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.815 | |
| Week 12 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.671 | |
| Trabecular structure | Day 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | <0.900 |
| Week 6 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Week 12 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.510 | |
| Schröter score | Day 1 | 11.350 | 19.700 | 21.050 | |
| Week 6 | 36.650 | 61.000 | 55.200 | ||
| Week 12 | 63.150 | 79.400 | 78.000 | 0.249 | |
Fig. 7CT scan analysis included a visualization of the highest BMD changes: the gap is evenly filled with new bone; red zones mark the areas with most bone growth, green zones moderate bone growth and blue areas show only minimal changes in BMD
Fig. 8Box plot showing a significant increase of BMD after 12 weeks (p < 0.0002)
Mean BMD measurement values in Hounsfield units (HU) at baseline and follow-up; p < 0.0002. Visualization of changes in BMD for each patient are displayed using color coding (red = high bone growth, green = moderate bone growth, blue = low bone growth)
| Patient | Mean BMD base | Mean BMD follow-up | Visualization of BMD changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 80.668 | 133.284 | |
| 2 | 66.473 | 120.400 | |
| 3 | 56.267 | 109.557 | |
| 4 | 52.394 | 74.488 | |
| 5 | 31.892 | 128.767 | |
| 6 | 60.847 | 76.738 | |
| 7 | 52.735 | 110.897 | |
| 8 | 58.040 | 178.214 | |
| 9 | 46.363 | 100.354 | |
| 10 | 43.953 | 150.971 | |
| 11 | 45.303 | 108.430 | |
| 12 | 60.094 | 58.141 | |
Mean BMD (range) | 54.586 (31.892–80.668) | 112.487 (178.214–58.141) |