Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the correction angles determined by the Miniaci and Dugdale techniques in patients treated with medial open wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) and show their impact on clinical outcomes.
Methods
Seventy-four patients constituted the study group. The correction angles in Group 1 were measured using the Miniaci technique, and those in Group 2 were measured using the Dugdale technique. The clinical evaluations included the Tinetti Gait and Balance Assessment (TGBA), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scores, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The effect of the correction angle on the patient's clinical outcomes was evaluated. Measurement techniques were also changed between groups for comparison.
Results
Seventy-four patients (62 females, 12 males) with a mean age of 53.7 ± 4.9 years were followed up for a mean of 67.4 ± 5.5 months. The TGBA, WOMAC, and VAS scores were improved at the last follow-up compared to the preoperative scores (p < 0.05). The preoperative TGBA and WOMAC scores were not significantly different between the two groups, but the last follow-up TGBA and WOMAC scores in Group 2 were worse than those in Group 1 (p < 0.05). When measuring techniques were changed, the preoperative correction angle (PCA) value and the last follow-up correction angle (LFCA) value were lower in Group 1 measured with the Dugdale technique but higher in Group 2 measured with the Miniaci technique (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
Since the correction angle values measured with the Miniaci technique in MOWHTO are higher than those measured with the Dugdale technique; the functional results are better.
Level of evidence
Retrospective cohort study, III.
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Reference45 articles.
1. Akamatsu Y, Mitsugi N, Mochida Y et al (2012) Navigated opening wedge high tibial osteotomy improves intraoperative correction angle compared with conventional method. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:586–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1616-8
2. Amis AA (2013) Biomechanics of high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2122-3
3. Asik M, Sen C, Kilic B, Goksan SB, Ciftci F, Taser OF (2006) High tibial osteotomy with Puddu plate for the treatment of varus gonarthrosis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:948–954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-006-0074-1
4. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840
5. Blackburn J, Ansari A, Porteous A, Murray J (2018) Reliability of two techniques and training level of the observer in measuring the correction angle when planning a high tibial osteotomy. Knee 25:130–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.11.007
Cited by
3 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