Francesco Grasso1, Pierre Martz2, Grégoire Micicoi3, Raghbir Khakha3, Kristian Kley3, Lukas Hanak3, Matthieu Ollivier4,5, Christophe Jacquet3,6. 1. IRCCS-Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 2. Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Centre-Hospitalo-Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France. 3. Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, St. Marguerite Hospital, 270 Boulevard Sainte Marguerite, BP 29 13274, Marseille, France. 4. Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, St. Marguerite Hospital, 270 Boulevard Sainte Marguerite, BP 29 13274, Marseille, France. ollivier.mt@gmail.com. 5. Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, ISM UMR 7287, 13288, Marseille Cedex 09, France. ollivier.mt@gmail.com. 6. Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, ISM UMR 7287, 13288, Marseille Cedex 09, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Double level osteotomy (DLO) (femoral and tibial) is a technically demanding procedure for which pre-operative planning accuracy and intraoperative correction are key factors. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the achieved correction using patient-specific cutting guides (PSCGs) compared to the planned correction, its ability to maintain joint line obliquity (JLO), and to evaluate clinical outcomes and level of patient satisfaction at a follow-up of two years. METHODS: A single-centre, prospective observational study including 22 patients who underwent DLO by PSCGs between 2014 and 2018 was performed. Post-operative alignment was evaluated and compared with the target angular values to define the accuracy of the correction for the hip-knee-ankle angle (ΔHKA), medial proximal tibial angle (ΔMPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (ΔLDFA), and posterior proximal tibial angle (ΔPPTA). Pre- and post-operative JLO was also evaluated. At two year follow-up, changes in the KOOS sub-scores and patient satisfaction were recorded. The Mann-Whitney U test with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to evaluate the differences between two variables; the paired Student's t test was used to estimate evolution of functional outcomes. RESULTS: The mean ΔHKA was 1.3 ± 0.5°; the mean ΔMPTA was 0.98 ± 0.3°; the mean ΔLDFA was 0.94 ± 0.2°; ΔPPTA was 0.45 ± 0.4°. The orientation of the joint line was preserved with a mean difference in the JLO of 0.4 ± 0.2. At last follow-up, it was recorded a significant improvement in all KOOS scores, and 19 patients were enthusiastic, two satisfied, and one moderately satisfied. CONCLUSION: Performing a DLO using PSCGs produces an accurate correction, without modification of the joint line orientation and with good functional outcomes at two year follow-up.
PURPOSE: Double level osteotomy (DLO) (femoral and tibial) is a technically demanding procedure for which pre-operative planning accuracy and intraoperative correction are key factors. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the achieved correction using patient-specific cutting guides (PSCGs) compared to the planned correction, its ability to maintain joint line obliquity (JLO), and to evaluate clinical outcomes and level of patient satisfaction at a follow-up of two years. METHODS: A single-centre, prospective observational study including 22 patients who underwent DLO by PSCGs between 2014 and 2018 was performed. Post-operative alignment was evaluated and compared with the target angular values to define the accuracy of the correction for the hip-knee-ankle angle (ΔHKA), medial proximal tibial angle (ΔMPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (ΔLDFA), and posterior proximal tibial angle (ΔPPTA). Pre- and post-operative JLO was also evaluated. At two year follow-up, changes in the KOOS sub-scores and patient satisfaction were recorded. The Mann-Whitney U test with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to evaluate the differences between two variables; the paired Student's t test was used to estimate evolution of functional outcomes. RESULTS: The mean ΔHKA was 1.3 ± 0.5°; the mean ΔMPTA was 0.98 ± 0.3°; the mean ΔLDFA was 0.94 ± 0.2°; ΔPPTA was 0.45 ± 0.4°. The orientation of the joint line was preserved with a mean difference in the JLO of 0.4 ± 0.2. At last follow-up, it was recorded a significant improvement in all KOOS scores, and 19 patients were enthusiastic, two satisfied, and one moderately satisfied. CONCLUSION: Performing a DLO using PSCGs produces an accurate correction, without modification of the joint line orientation and with good functional outcomes at two year follow-up.
Authors: Juan M Gómez-Palomo; Stephan Meschian-Coretti; José L Esteban-Castillo; Juan J García-Vera; Elvira Montañez-Heredia Journal: JBJS Case Connect Date: 2020 Apr-Jun
Authors: M Munier; M Donnez; M Ollivier; X Flecher; P Chabrand; J-N Argenson; S Parratte Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: Jack M Haglin; Adam E M Eltorai; Joseph A Gil; Stephen E Marcaccio; Juliana Botero-Hincapie; Alan H Daniels Journal: Orthop Surg Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.071