| Literature DB >> 34754331 |
Elaheh Elyasi1, Guillaume Cavalié2,3, Antoine Perrier1,4, Wilfrid Graff4, Yohan Payan1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The wedge opened during high tibial osteotomy defines the alignment correction in different body planes and alters soft tissue insertions. Although multiple complications of the surgery can be correlated to this, there is still a lack of consensus on the occurrence of those complications and their cause. The current study is aimed at clarifying this problem using a combined medical and biomechanical perspective.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34754331 PMCID: PMC8572600 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9974666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Bionics Biomech ISSN: 1176-2322 Impact factor: 1.781
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram of the search and selection process and the effect of application of inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Modifications of joint pressures, contact areas according to the state of the medial collateral ligament. sMCL: superficial MCL; MJO: medial joint opening; ∗: statistically significant data.
| Authors (year) | Study | No. knees | sMCL release state | Correction amount | Medial contact pressure change from intact state (MPa) | Medial contact area change from intact state (mm2) | Lateral contact pressure change from intact state (MPa) | Lateral contact area change from intact state (mm2) | Valgus laxity | Comments/highlights | QUACS scale | STROBE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pape et al. (2006) [ | Cadaveric | 20 | Complete release | 0° | — | — | — | — | ↑ 38% MJO | No HTO performed, the release of sMCL should be kept to a minimum to decrease the potential of late valgus instability especially in patients with small wedge sizes and preexisting | 11/13 | — |
| Anterior bundles release | ↑ 39% MJO | |||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Seo et al. (2016) [ | Clinical | 54 | Complete release | Fujisawa point | — | — | — | — | ↑ 0.2 mm MJO intra-operative | Medial laxity induced by complete sMCL release can be recovered by opening the osteotomy site. | — | 18/22 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Van Egmond et al. (2017) [ | Cadaveric | 7 | No release | 10° | ↑0.17∗ | ↑132.9∗ | ↓0.02∗ | ↓47.0 | ↓0.1° | Release of sMCL helps reducing medial cartilage pressure but significantly increases valgus laxity. Considerable relaxation of MCL over time | 9/13 | — |
| Complete release | 0.0∗ | ↑9.6∗ | ↑0.01∗ | ↑7.7 | ↑7.9° | |||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Seitz et al. (2018) [ | Cadaveric | 6 | No release | 5° | ↑ 0.11 | ↑ 9 | ↓ 0.14 | ↓ 35 | — | For the extended knee, biplanar osteotomy, medial contact pressure decreased most when with 10° correction and releasing MCL | 9/13 | — |
| 10° | ↑ 0.14 | ↑ 43 | ↓ 0.25 | ↓ 85 | ||||||||
| Complete release | 0° | ↓ 0.03 | ↓ 79 | ↓ 0.24 | ↓ 97 | |||||||
| 5° | ↓ 0.05 | ↓ 63 | ↓ 0.11 | ↓ 35 | ||||||||
| 10° | ↑ 0.01 | ↓ 125 | ↓ 0.14 | ↓ 52 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Agneskirchner et al. (2007) [ | Cadaveric | 6 | No release | 9 mm | ↑ 0.68 ∗ | ↑ 78.4 | ↓ 0.3 ∗ | ↓ 91.7 | — | Under 1000 N load passing from 62% valgus position (the effect of different loading axes has also been studied for the intact knee), biplanar osteotomy, high medial pressure maintains despite shifting the loading axis into valgus, decompression happens only after complete release of MCL distal fibers. | 9/13 | — |
| 50% release | ↑ 0.24 ∗ | ↑ 29.7 | ↓ 0.24 ∗ | ↓ 35.2 | ||||||||
| Complete release | ↓ 0.04 ∗ | ↓ 15.0 | ↓ 0.08 ∗ | ↓ 47.7 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Suero et al. (2015) [ | Cadaveric | 7 | Complete release | 5° | ↑ 3% ∗ | ↑ 9% | ↑ 33% | ↑ 11% | — | Under 550 N axial load, we have only reported the percentage of alterations in the contact pressure and contact area. The reason for this decision was that the reported values were not consistent with the other studies although the units were the same. | 11/13 | — |
| 10° | ↓ 23% | ↓ 21% | ↑ 84% | 0% | ||||||||
| 15° | ↓ 64% | ↓ 46% | ↑ 141% | ↓ 2% | ||||||||
Modifications of the tibial slope. PTS: posterior tibial slope; HTO: high tibial osteotomy; HKA: standing hip–knee–ankle; OW: open-wedge; CW: closed-wedge; ∗: statistically significant data.
| Authors (year) | Study type | Osteotomy technique | No. knees | Correction amount | PTS pre-HTO | PTS post-HTO | PTS difference | QUACS | STROBE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martineau et al. (2010) [ | Cadaveric | OW | 6 | 5 mm | 8° | 12.1° | ↑ 4.1° ∗ | 7/13 | ||
| 10 mm | 16.3° | ↑ 8.3° ∗ | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Ozel et al. (2017) [ | Clinical | OW | 39 | Mean HKA 183.7° | 8° | 15° | ↑ 7° ∗ | 14/22 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Sterett et al. (2009) [ | Clinical | OW | 82 | — | 12.5° | 16.5° | ↑4° ∗ | 18/22 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Lee et al. (2014) [ | Clinical | OW | With navigation | 40 | Fujisawa point | 10.5° | 11.5° | ↑1° | 17/22 | |
| Without navigation | 40 | 8.7° | 8.2° | ↓0.5° | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Nerhus et al. (2017) [ | Clinical | OW (CW studied but not reported here) | 70 total | HKA 186° | 7° | 8° | ↑1° ∗ | 17/22 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Noyes et al. (2006) [ | Clinical | OW | 55 | — | 9° | 10° | ↑1° | 15/22 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Elmali et al. (2013) [ | Clinical | OW | Monoplanar osteotomy | 56 | HKA 186.4 | 10.1° | 11.7° | ↑1.6° ∗ | 15/22 | |
| Biplanar osteotomy | 32 | HKA 185.4 | 9.9° | 10.7° | ↑0.8° ∗ | |||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Birmingham al. (2009) [ | Clinical | OW | 126 | HKA 180° | 5.15° | 6.37° | ↑1.22° ∗ | 15/22 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Chang et al. (2017) [ | Clinical | OW | With navigation | 41 | WBA passing 64.3% | 11.7° | 12.2° | ↑0.5° | 19/22 | |
| Without navigation | 66 | WBA passing 57.3% | 12.1° | 13.1° | ↑1° | |||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Na et al. (2018) [ | Clinical | OW | 71 | HKA: 182.6° (varus > 4°) | 10.6° (varus > 4°) | 10.9° (varus > 4°) | ↑0.3° (varus > 4°) | 18/22 | ||
| HKA: 184.2° (varus < 4°) | 10.0° (varus < 4°) | 10.7° (varus < 4°) | ↑0.7° (varus < 4°) | |||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Van Egmond et al. (2016) [ | Cadaveric | OW (CW studied but not reported here) | 25 OW | HKA: 184.3° (open) | — | 16.2° (open) | ↑1.6° | 9/13 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Nha et al. (2016) [ | Clinical meta-analysis | OW (CW studied but not reported here) | — | — | — | — | ↑2° ∗ | |||
|
| ||||||||||
| Yan et al. (2016) [ | Literature review | OW | With navigation | 1608 | — | Navigated HTO produces significantly less change in PTS compared to conventional methods. | ||||
| Without navigation | 608 | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Wu et al. (2017) [ | Comprehensive meta-analysis | OW and CW | 663 OW | — | Open-wedge HTO showed greater PTS angle compared to closed-wedge, ↑1.31° ∗ | |||||
Patellar position modifications during OWHTO. NS: not significant; ∗: statistically significant data; mBP: modified Blackburne-Peel ratio; OW: open-wedge; Clin.: clinical study; Monopl.: monoplanar; Postop.: postoperative.
| Authors (year) | Study type | Osteotomy technique | No. knees | Correction amount | Patellar height | Lateral tilt | Shift (mm) | STROBE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insall-Salvati | Modified Insall-Salvati | Caton-Deschamps | Blackburne-Peel | Modified Blumensaat | |||||||||
| Longino et al. (2013) [ | Clin. | OW | Biplanar | 29 | HKA: 180.8° | — | — | ↓0.09∗ | ↓0.10∗ | — | — | — | 19/22 |
| Monopl. | 29 | HKA: 179.9° | NS | NS | ↓0.19∗ | ↓0.23∗ | — | — | — | ||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Hanada et al. (2014) [ | Clin. | OW (CW not reported here) | 10 | WBA passing 62.5% | ↑0.308∗ | — | — | — | ↓ 0.094∗ | — | — | 13/22 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Tanaka et al. (2018) [ | Clin. | Biplanar OW | 52 | HKA: 181.3° | — | — | ↓0.16∗ | — | — | — | — | 14/22 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Park et al. (2017) [ | Clin. | OW | Biplanar | 33 | HKA: 180.3° | ↓0.01 | ↑0.01 | ↓0.04∗ | ↓0.03∗ | — | ↓1.40°∗ | ↓0.01 | 16/22 |
| Monopl. | 30 | HKA: 180.8° | ↓0.05∗ | ↓0.08∗ | ↓0.10∗ | ↓0.09∗ | ↓2.00°∗ | ↓0.01 | |||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Fan (2012) [ | Clin. | OW | 9 | HKA: 183.9° | ↑0.07 | — | — | ↓0.19∗ | — | — | — | 10/22 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Bito et al. (2010) [ | Clin. | OW | 49 | — | — | — | — | mBP ↓0.2∗ | — | ↓2.2°∗ | NS | 11/22 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Song et al. (2012) [ | Clin. | OW (CW not reported here) | 50 | — | — | — | — | ↓0.10∗ | — | ↑0.6° | ↑0.4 | 9/22 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Lee et al. (2016) [ | Clin. | OW | 46 | HKA: 181.4° | — | — | — | ↓0.1∗ | — | ↓1.8°∗ | NS | 11/22 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| D'Entremont et al. (2014) [ | Clin. | OW | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | ↓2.20°∗ | ↑0.9∗ | 17/22 | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Birmingham et al. (2009) [ | Clin. | OW | 126 | HKA: 180° | NS | — | — | ↓0.05∗ | — | — | — | 15/22 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Elmali et al. (2013) [ | Clin. | OW | Biplanar | 32 | HKA: 185.4° | NS | — | — | NS | — | — | — | 15/22 |
| Monopl. | 56 | HKA: 186.4° | ↓0.07∗ | — | — | ↓0.07∗ | — | — | — | ||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Noyes et al. (2006) [ | Clin. | OW | 55 | — | — | — | — | ↓0.09 | — | — | — | 15/22 | |
Biomechanical studies on the OWHTO alignment and related surgical complications. PTS: posterior tibial slope; OW: open-wedge; CW: closed-wedge.
| Authors (year) | Simulation technique | Osteotomy technique | Ligament modeling | Loading condition | Objective | Outcomes | Validation method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zheng et al. [ | FE | OW | 3D FE | Subject-specific loading data at 5% of the gait cycle obtained from gait analysis | Introducing a subject-specific modeling procedure to see the biomechanical effects of HTO alignment on tibiofemoral cartilage stress distribution. | Providing a platform for noninvasive, patient-specific preoperative planning of the osteotomy | Maximum contact pressure was compared to literature under similar axial loading [ |
|
| |||||||
| Martay et al. (2017) [ | FE | OW | Axial | Loading and alignment calculated from motion analysis data at the point of maximum load in the walking cycle | How different WBA realignments affected load distribution in the knee, to find the optimal postsurgical realignment. | Proposing a new target for WBA correction being 55% tibial width (1.7°–1.9° valgus), | Validated their model creation method using porcine specimens. Compared their HTO related results to a published human cadaveric study [ |
|
| |||||||
| Purevsuren et al. (2019) [ | Multi-body dynamics | OW | Axial | Axial load in standing position | Effects of MCL laxity, loading axis correction, and different types of MCL release, on the medial-lateral contact force distribution after OWHTO | MCL slackness affected load distribution of the knee after HTO. Anterior and middle bundle release shown to be the optimal surgical method to balance contact distribution in simulated standing position. Only anterior bundle release is recommended for knees with a large amount of MCL slackness. No effect observed by changing the simulated axis correction. | Compared estimated medial and lateral contact distribution after HTO with previous cadaveric studies [ |
|
| |||||||
| Mootanah et al. (2014) [ | FE | None | 3D FE (tuned to minimize kinematic difference from cadaver specimen) | Axial load + varus and valgus bending moments (0 to 15 nm) applied about the knee joint center to simulate different malalignment degrees | Predicting knee joint contact forces and pressures for different degrees of malalignment. | Generated knee model could give an accurate prediction of normalized intra-articular pressure and forces for different loading conditions. The model could be further developed for subject-specific surgical planning. | Cadaveric study performed having matching boundary and loading conditions. |
|
| |||||||
| Kuriyama et al. (2019) [ | Dynamic musculo-skeletal modeling | OW | Axial | Gait and squat | Determining the ideal coronal alignment under dynamic conditions | Approved the validity of classical target alignment. Over-correction should be avoided. | Comparing the kinematics of the native knee model with the in vivo kinematics obtained from a healthy volunteer. |
|
| |||||||
| Trad et al. (2018) [ | FE | CW | Axial | Axial load in standing position | Effect of varying the high tibial osteotomy correction angle on the stress distribution in two tibiofemoral compartments | Achieving a balanced stress distribution in two compartments and desired alignment under a valgus hypercorrection of 4.5 degrees | Compared against experimental and numerical results from the literature. |