‘One millimetre equals one degree’ is a major source of inaccuracy in planning osteotomies around the knee for metaphyseal deformities compared to the digital planning

Author:

Charre Dimitri1,An Jae‐Sung12ORCID,Khakha Raghbir3,Kley Kristian45,Şahbat Yavuz16ORCID,Ollivier Matthieu1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Institut du mouvement et de l'appareil locomoteur Marseille France

2. Tokyo Medical and Dental University Tokyo Japan

3. Guys and St. Thomas' Hospitals London UK

4. Harley Street Specialist Hospital London UK

5. Orthopädie Maximilium Donauwörth Germany

6. Erzurum Regional Training and Research Hospital, Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Erzurum Turkey

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of virtually performed osteotomies around the knee. The comparison was made between the Miniaci method (method 1), considered the gold standard planning, with the widely held dogma that one degree of correction required equates to one millimetre of opening/closing (method 2).MethodsThis retrospective cross‐sectional study was conducted between December 2018 and September 2022 in patients aged at least 15 years with metaphyseal knee deformity. Osteotomy planning was performed in methods 1 and 2 utilising calibrated long‐leg alignment X‐rays in the frontal plane. In both methods, the desired correction was defined by the Fujisawa point. The error % in measurement (ratio method 1/method 2) and the difference in millimetres (method 1 − method 2) between the two methods were analysed.ResultsA total of 107 osteotomies with 27 (25.2%) distal femoral osteotomies, 54 (50.5%) proximal tibial osteotomies and 26 (24.3%) double‐level osteotomies were performed virtually with a mean hip–knee–ankle angle of 176.4 ± 6.6. In distal femur osteotomy, the mean error % between methods 1 and 2 was 38.9 ± 16.7% and 22.4 ± 16.8% for the opening and closing groups, respectively. In proximal tibial osteotomies, the mean error % was 22.7 ± 15.6% and 9 ± 10.8% for the opening and closing groups, respectively. In double‐level osteotomy, the mean error % of femur‐based corrections was 34.9 ± 19% and 19.5 ± 21% for the opening and closing groups, respectively, and the mean error of the tibial‐based corrections was 26.4 ± 12.1% for the opening group and 10.8 ± 10% for the closing group, respectively.ConclusionPlanning one millimeter per degree of desired correction for osteotomies around the knee in metaphyseal deformities is a major source of error when compared with digital planning using the Miniaci method. This was seen most frequently with osteotomies of the distal femur and all opening wedge osteotomies.Level of EvidenceLevel Ⅲ, retrospective cross‐sectional study.

Publisher

Wiley

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3