Response to 'Critical comments and questions to the publication "Getgood A, Collins B, Slynarski K, Kurowska E, Parker D, Engebretsen L, MacDonald PB, Litchfield R 2011 Short-term safety and efficacy of a novel high tibial osteotomy system: a case controlled study"'

Osteotomy configuration of the proximal wedge and analysis of the affecting factors in the medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were (1) to confirm the disparity of the measured thickness at the lateral hinge between anterior-posterior (AP) radiograph and 3D CT image, (2) to evaluate the affecting factors, and (3) to evaluate the differences between uniplanar and biplanar osteotomies.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2014, a prospective comparative study was performed with 30 patients who received uniplanar osteotomy (group I) and 35 patients who received biplanar osteotomy (group II). For measurement of the proximal wedge, postoperative AP radiograph and 3D CT images were used. In the AP radiograph, medial and lateral bony bridge thicknesses were measured. In the 3D CT, the anterior and posterior images parallel to the coronal plane were selected for the evaluation. Coronal osteotomy slope was measured with the anterior image of the 3D CT scan. Sagittal osteotomy slope was measured with the sagittal section of the CT scan.

RESULTS

Differences between the lateral bony bridge thicknesses measured in AP radiograph and the posterolateral posterolateral bony bridge thicknesses measured in 3D CT were statistically significant in both groups. Negative correlation was observed in the biplanar osteotomy group. Differences of the sagittal osteotomy slope from the native tibial slope showed negative correlation in the biplanar osteotomy group.

CONCLUSION

Thickness of the posterolateral bony bridge was smaller compared to the observed thickness on the AP radiograph image that is routinely used for the follow-up. The thickness would be getting smaller if osteotomy is performed with an abrupt angle on the coronal plane and reverse slope on the sagittal plane. Therefore, osteotomy with abrupt angle on the coronal plane and reverse slope on the sagittal plane should be avoided for the proper thickness of the posterolateral bony bridge.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

High tibial osteotomy for the treatment of medial osteoarthritis of the knee with new iBalance system: 2 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

A new system for performing open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO), the iBalance HTO System-Arthrex, has been recently developed in order to make the surgery more reproducible and safe. The aim of this study was to determine the short-term outcomes of the iBalance technique in medial compartment osteoarthritis and varus malalignment of the knee.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with a mean age of 50.7 years (SD 5.09), affected by symptomatic varus knee, with medial compartment osteoarthritis (1-2 Ahlbäck degree), were treated with iBalance HTO between July 2011 and February 2012 and evaluated retrospectively. Patients were assessed against the following benchmarks: subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and VAS for pain and Tegner scores, along with X-rays and MRI, before surgery and after a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

No severe intraoperative complications or implant failures occurred. The mean preoperative scores were as follows: subjective IKDC 66.8 (SD 1.18), KOOS 61.3 (SD 0.86), Vas for pain 8.6 (SD 1.72) and Tegner 4.1 (SD 2.06), while at follow-up the scores were 73.6 (SD 1.01), 88.1 (SD 1.23), 2.9 (SD 2.35) and 3.1 (SD 1.83), respectively. Correction ranged between 3° and 8°. All patients showed complete articular recovery, no loss of correction, no substantial variation in A/P slope and no hardware problems.

CONCLUSIONS

iBalance proved to be effective and safe and produced good overall results. Consolidation and osseointegration of the system took place rapidly, while recovery was precocious, comparable with traditional methods and with no severe complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.