| Literature DB >> 35597924 |
Xin-Long Ma1,2, Jian-Xiong Ma3,4, Xing-Wen Zhao5,6,7, Yu-Ren Du5,6, Ying Wang5,6, Hao-Hao Bai5,6, Bin Lu5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted preoperative planning, combined with PSI has become an effective technique for treating complex limb deformities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the novel technique in corrective osteotomy for intra-articular varus ankle deformities associated with osteoarthritis and ankle instability.Entities:
Keywords: Ankle arthritis; Ankle osteoarthritis; Corrective osteotomy; Patient-specific instrument; Preoperative planning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35597924 PMCID: PMC9123770 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05437-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.562
Demographic characteristics, surgical procedures and adverse events
| Case/Gender/Side | Age (yrs) | BMI (kg/m2) | Takakura stage | Planned correction (°) | F/U (mo) | Time to Union (mo) | Additional surgical procedures | Adverse events | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/M/R | 55 | 27.3 | IIIa | 87 | 74 | 46 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement | - |
| 2/M/R | 65 | 29.4 | IIIa | 86 | 73 | 47 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction, deltoid ligament release | - |
| 3/F/L | 46 | 26.9 | IIIa | 84 | 84 | 44 | 5 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction | Hinge fracture |
| 4/ F/R | 47 | 22.4 | II | 85 | 80 | 43 | 5.5 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction | Hinge fracture |
| 5/ F/R | 66 | 27.1 | II | 89 | 77 | 40 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement | - |
| 6/M/L | 64 | 24.2 | IIIb | 90 | 80 | 40 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement, , deltoid ligament release | - |
| 7/M/L | 38 | 26.5 | IIIa | 85 | 80 | 37 | 6.5 | Osteophyte debridement | Hinge fracture |
| 8/F/L | 54 | 24.8 | IIIa | 85 | 80 | 33 | 3.5 | Osteophyte debridement | - |
| 9/M/R | 67 | 20.3 | II | 83 | 78 | 33 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement, posterior tibial tendon transferring, Achilles tendon lengthening | - |
| 10/F/L | 62 | 22.9 | IIIb | 88 | 82 | 32 | 6 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction | - |
| 11/F/L | 54 | 23.4 | IIIa | 84 | 80 | 29 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement, deltoid ligament release | - |
| 12/M/R | 76 | 27.7 | IIIa | 88 | 80 | 25 | 3.5 | Osteophyte debridement | - |
| 13/M/R | 67 | 25.5 | II | 88 | 78 | 22 | 3 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction | - |
| 14/M/L | 49 | 29.8 | II | 90 | 80 | 23 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement, posterior tibial tendon transferring | - |
| 15/F/L | 67 | 26.1 | II | 90 | 79 | 22 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction | - |
| 16/M/R | 48 | 25.8 | II | 88 | 81 | 23 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement, deltoid ligament release | - |
| 17/F/L | 67 | 27.3 | II | 86 | 80 | 22 | 5 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction | - |
| 18/F/R | 63 | 26.7 | II | 87 | 82 | 26 | 4 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction | - |
| 19/M/R | 52 | 27.8 | II | 88 | 78 | 24 | 5 | Osteophyte debridement, lateral ligament reconstruction | - |
| Mean (SD) | 58.3 (9.9) | 25.9 (2.4) | - | 86.9 (2.2) | 79.3 (2.6) | 32.2 (9.0) | 4.4 (0.9) | - | - |
Fig. 1Workflow of computer-assisted planning and patient-specific surgical guide design (right ankle case 2). a The 3D model of affected bone (right, yellow). b The 3D model of unaffected bone (left, blue) and the mirror model of the left normal bone (green). c The affected bone was superimposed over the mirror model of the left normal bone. d An opening wedge osteotomy was simulated. e A patient-matched plate was designed with the lengths and trajectories of every screw marked. f The final designed patient-specific guide that fits the surface of the tibia. g-h The physical model of the guide, the patient-matched plate and tibia
Fig. 2Intraoperative application of patient-specific surgical guides and patient-matched plates (right ankle case 2). a-b The guide was intraoperatively placed onto the planned surgical position and checked by fluoroscopy, and osteotomy was completed with a bone saw through the slot on the guide. c-d Correction and fixation were completed with the patient-matched plate by inserting locking screws into the predrilled holes
Fig. 3Schematic measurements for radiographic parameters in anteroposterior and lateral weight bearing X-rays of the ankle joint. a TAS angle was defined as the angle between the axis of the tibia and the distal articular surface of the tibia; TT angle was defined as the angle between the distal articular surface of the tibia and the upper surface of the talus; TMM angle was defined as the angle between the axis of the tibia and the articular surface of medial malleolus; TC angle was defined as the angle between the axis of the tibia and a line drawn from the apex of medial malleolus to the apex of lateral malleolus. b TLS angle was defined as the angle between the axis of the tibia and the surface of the distal tibia in the lateral view. c The opening-wedge angle was defined as the angle between the upper and lower osteotomy margins after distraction (asterisk), and the wedge height was defined as the distance between the upper and lower osteotomy margins on the medial tibial cortex (red arrow)
The comparison of preoperative and postoperative function outcomes and limb alignment
| Preoperative | 84.1 ± 4.6 (70.7—91.2) | |
| 1 year post-op | 87.7 ± 3.1 (81.7—92.7) | 0.001 |
| Last F/U | 86.2 ± 2.6 (81.2—90.4) | 0.045 |
| Preoperative | 15.5 ± 6.4 (4.6—29.3) | |
| 1 year post-op | 5.9 ± 4.3 (0—16.1) | < 0.001 |
| Last F/U | 5.0 ± 2.9 (1.1—9.7) | < 0.001 |
| Preoperative | 33.8 ± 6.8 (23.1—47.9) | |
| 1 year post-op | 28.9 ± 6.3 (17.0—40.2) | 0.015 |
| Last F/U | 28.8 ± 5.8 (19.7—37.9) | 0.002 |
| Preoperative | 72.9 ± 4.3 (65.3—81.0) | |
| 1 year post-op | 79.3 ± 5.5 (71.8—90.1) | < 0.001 |
| Last F/U | 78.9 ± 4.5 (71.1—88.7) | < 0.001 |
| Preoperative | 79.5 ± 7.3 (65.6—94.29) | |
| 1 year post-op | 80.2 ± 5.5 (71.2—90.6) | 0.544 |
| Last F/U | 79.8 ± 4.2 (73.3—86.8) | 0.839 |
| Planned | 16.1 ± 5.7 (7.5—29.3) | |
| Obtained post-op | 15.7 ± 5.3 (7.9—29.1) | 0.904c |
| Planned | 8.0 ± 3.2 (3.9—17.3) | |
| Obtained post-op | 8.1 ± 3.3 (4.0—17.6) | 0.165c |
| Preoperative | 32.9 ± 4.2 (25.0—40.0) | |
| Last F/U | 34.5 ± 4.4 (30.0—40.0) | 0.069c |
| Preoperative | 5.3 ± 0.6 (4.0—6.0) | |
| Last F/U | 2.7 ± 0.7 (2.0—4.0) | < 0.001c |
| Preoperative | 56.2 ± 7.6 (45.0—74.0) | |
| Last F/U | 80.6 ± 4.6 (73.0—89.0) | < 0.001 |
aThe values are given as the mean ± SD (range)
bThe P values shown are for the comparisons between the preoperative and follow-up investigations
cWilcoxon signed-rank test
Fig. 4Three cases with intraoperative hinge fractures are indicated by the arrows. Callus formation was observed at 5 months a-b 5.5 months. c-d and 6.5 months e–f after surgery