| Literature DB >> 36233583 |
Stefano Zaffagnini1,2, Giacomo Dal Fabbro1, Claudio Belvedere3, Alberto Leardini3, Silvio Caravelli1, Gian Andrea Lucidi1,2, Piero Agostinone1, Massimiliano Mosca1, Maria Pia Neri1, Alberto Grassi1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The accuracy of the coronal alignment corrections using conventional high tibial osteotomy (HTO) falls short, and multiplanar deformities of the tibia require consideration of both the coronal and sagittal planes. Patient-specific instrumentations have been introduced to improve the control of the correction. Clear evidence about customized devices for HTO and their correction accuracy lacks.Entities:
Keywords: correction accuracy; custom made; high tibial osteotomy; knee osteoarthritis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36233583 PMCID: PMC9571741 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram.
Included Studies.
| STUDY | DESIGN | LEVEL OF | OSTEOTOMY TECHNIQUE | CUSTOMISED DEVICE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chaouche 2019 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Chernchujit 2019 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Planning system (3D CAD weight bearing simulated guidance) |
| Corin 2020 [ | Case report | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Donnez 2018 [ | Cadaveric study | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Duan 2021 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA) |
| Fortier 2021 [ | technical note | V | VARUS MCW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Fucentese 2020 [ | Retrospective case series | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) |
| Gerbers 2021 [ | Case report | IV | VARUS LOW | Cutting guide (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) |
| Jacquet 2019 (same patients of Chaouche) [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Jeong 2022 [ | Case report | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide 3D-printed |
| Jones 2018 [ | Technical note | V | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Embody, London, UK) |
| Jörgens 2022 [ | Cadaveric study | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Autodesk Inc., Mill Valley, CA, USA) |
| Kim 2018 [ | Retrospective comparative | III | VALGUS MOW | Printed 3D spacer model |
| Kuriyama 2019 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Planning system (3D Template, Kyocera, Kyoto, Japan) |
| Lau 2021 [ | Technical note | V | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) |
| Liu 2022 [ | Cadaveric study | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Johnson & Johnosn, New Brunswick, NJ, USA) |
| Mao 2020 [ | Prospective comparative | II | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide 3 D-printed |
| Miao 2022 [ | Cadaveric study | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide 3D-printed |
| Munier 2017 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Pérez-Mañanes 2016 [ | Prospective comparative | II | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (DaVinci 1.0, XYZ Printing, Taipei, Taiwan) |
| Predescu 2021 [ | Retrospective observational | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak 2021 [ | Technical note | V | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Ruggeri 2022 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (T.O.K.A. 3D Metal Printing, Bath, UK) |
| Savov 2021 (in vivo series) [ | Retrospective observational | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Savov 2021 (cadaveric series) [ | Cadaveric study | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Tardy 2020 [ | Prospective comparative (multicenter) | II | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Newclip Technics, Haute-Goulaine, France) |
| Van Genechten 2020 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Fitting wedge (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) |
| Victor 2013 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) |
| Yang 2018 [ | Prospective cohort | IV | VALGUS MOW | Cutting guide (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA) |
MOW: medial opening wedge; MCW: medial closing wedge, LOW: lateral opening wedge.
(a) In Vivo Studies; (b) In Vivo Comparative Studies.
| ( | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chaouche [ | 100 | 24 months | ΔHKA 1 ± 0.9 | N.R. |
| ChernchujIt [ | 19 | N.R. | ΔMA −0.04 | N.R |
| Corin [ | 1 | N.R. | N.A. | Associated ACL revision |
| Duan [ | 25 | 18 months | N.A. | N.R. |
| Fucentese [ | 23 | 12 weeks | ΔHKA 0.8 ± 1.5 | N.R. |
| Gerbers [ | 1 | 3 months | ΔHKA 2.76; | Valgus and recurvatum preoperative knee deformity |
| Jacquet [ | 71 | 12 months | Same study populations of Chaouche | Outcomes evaluation: surgical time, surgeon anxiety, and number of fluoroscopic images |
| Kuriyama [ | 60 | 2 months | ΔMPTA1.4; | N.R. |
| Munier [ | 10 | 3 months | ΔHKA 0.98 | N.R. |
| Predescu [ | 25 | 12 months | ΔHKA, ΔPTS, ΔMPTA <2° | N.R. |
| Ruggeri [ | 4 | 6 months | N.A. | Lateralization of the ground reaction force at gait analysis |
| Savov [ | 19 | N.R. | ΔHKA 1.45 ± 1.16° | N.R. |
| Van Genechten [ | 10 | 3 months | ΔHKA 0.9 ± 0.6 | N.R. |
| Victor [ | 14 | 6 weeks | Δ WEDGE ANGLE (CORONAL) 0° | N.R. |
| Yang [ | 10 | 3 months | ΔWBL % 4.9% | N.R. |
| Jeong [ | 1 | 6 weeks | ΔHKA 0.7 | N.R. |
| ( | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kim [ | 20 | 12 months | ΔHKA 2.3 ± 2.5 | 20 standard MOW: |
| Mao [ | 18 | 12 months | ΔHKA 0.2 ± 0.6; | 19 standard MOW |
| Pérez-Mañanes [ | 8 | N.R. | ΔCA 0.5 | 20 standard MOW: NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES |
| Tardy [ | 39 | 12 months | ΔHKA 0.3 ± 3.1 | 61 standard MOW/LCW and a group of 26 MOW with navigation system: NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES |
Δ: difference; HKA: hip-knee-ankle angle; MPTA: medial proximal tibial angle; PPTA: posterior proximal tibial angle; PTS: posterior tibial slope; LPTS: lateral posterior tibial slope; MPTS: medial posterior tibial slope; MA: mechanical axis; WBL%: percentage of the weight-bearing line; CA: correction angle; PSI: patient-specific instrumentation; N.R.: nothing to report; N.A.: non assessed
Cadaveric Studies.
| STUDY | NUMBER OF PATIENTS/KNEES | Δ FROM PLANNED CORRECTION | NOTES |
|---|---|---|---|
| Donnez [ | 10 | ΔMPTA 0.2 | N.R. |
| Jörgens [ | 13 | ΔMPTA 0.57 | N.R. |
| Liu [ | 15 | ΔHKA 0.62 ± 0.56; | Control group of 11 standard HTO: PSI GROUP MORE ACCURATE FOR HKA CORRECTION ( |
| Miao | 10 | ΔMPTA −0.72 | |
| Savov [ | 8 | ΔMPTA 3.47 ± 1.07° | PERFORMED WITHOUT USE OF INTRAOPERATIVE FLUOROSCOPY;Compared to human retrospective series by Savov with intra-operative fluoroscopy: SIGNIFICANT HIGHER ACCURACY WAS OBTAINED USING INTRAOPERATIVE FLUOROSCOPY ( |
Δ: difference; MPTA: medial proximal tibial angle, PTS: posterior tibial slope; LDFA: lateral distal femoral angle; PSI: patient-specific instrumentation; N.R.: nothing to report.
Figure 2(a) 2D planning based on the pre-operative weight-bearing long leg radiograph. (b) The location and angle of the main incision together with any desired change in posterior tibial slope (PTS) were selected using the 3D CT data.
Figure 3(a) The planning software generates the geometries of both the HTO stabilization plate, and the surgical guide contoured to the patient’s individual tibia surface geometry; (b) the planning software also records all screw lengths required.
Figure 4(a) A synthetic fluoroscopic image to aid the surgical guide positioning was produced. (b) The patient-specific cutting guide was placed in the planned position and temporarily secured with 2 k-wires. (c) Once the planned location was obtained, the device was secured with seven drill bits. (d) Intraoperative fluoroscopy allowed the confirmation of guide position prior to drilling or saw cuts.
Figure 5(a) After the bone cut, the osteotomy gap was opened using the two opening screws; (b) the gap was then temporarily filled with two patient-specific wedges; (c) the custom plate was then positioned using the two remaining drill bits as a guide and secured with seven screws.
Pilot Cases.
| PATIENT ID | AGE | BMI | VAS PRE-OP | VAS POST-OP | KOOS TOTAL PRE-OP | KOOS TOTAL POST-OP | HKA PRE-OP | HKA PLANNED | HKA POST-OP | PTS PRE-OP | PTS PLANNED | PTS POST-OP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | 48 years old | 23.5 | 3 | 0 | 76 | 86 | 185.6° | 180.6° | 180.1° | 10° | 10° | 9.9° |
| Patient 2 | 60 years old | 27.7 | 3 | 0 | 51 | 74 | 190.1° | 180.3° | 181.9° | 8° | 8° | 8° |
| Patient 3 | 47 years old | 24.7 | 4 | 0 | 51 | 90 | 194.3° | 181.3 | 181.1° | 18° | 13.5° | 15° |
BMI: body mass index; HKA: hip-knee-ankle angle; PTS: posterior tibial slope.
Figure 6Pre- and postoperative full-length weight-bearing X-ray and lateral knee X-ray of patient 1 (a) and patient 2 (b).
Figure 7Patient 3 imaging; (a) preoperative full-length weight-bearing X-ray, 3D CT-based planning of the osteotomy and postoperative full-length weight-bearing X-ray; (b) preoperative lateral knee X-ray, 3D CT-based planning of the sagittal plane correction and postoperative lateral knee X-ray.