These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Patient-specific instrumentation for medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomies in the management of medial compartment osteoarthritis yields high accuracy and low complication rates: A systematic review.
    Author: Dasari SP, Hevesi M, Mameri E, Ferrer-Rivero R, Fortier LM, Jackson GR, Warrier AA, Maheshwer B, Jawanda H, Khan ZA, Kerzner B, Browning RB, Gursoy S, Chahla J.
    Journal: J ISAKOS; 2023 Jun; 8(3):163-176. PubMed ID: 36931505.
    Abstract:
    IMPORTANCE: There has been growing interest in the use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) to maximise accuracy and minimise the risk of major complications for medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomies (MOW-HTOs). Numerous studies have reported the efficacy and safety of implementing this technology into clinical practice, yet no systematic review summarising the clinical literature on PSI for MOW-HTOs has been performed to date. AIM: The aim of this investigation was to perform a systematic review summarising the evidence surrounding the use of PSI for MOW-HTOs in the management of medial compartment osteoarthritis. EVIDENCE REVIEW: PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were queried in October 2021 for studies that used PSI for MOW-HTOs when managing medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Primary outcomes included accuracy in coronal plane correction (mechanical medial proximal tibial angle), sagittal plane correction (posterior tibial slope), and mechanical axis correction (hip-knee-ankle angle [HKA], mechanical femorotibial angle, and weight-bearing line). Accuracy was defined as error between post-operative measurements relative to the planned pre-operative correction. A secondary outcome was the incidence of major complications. FINDINGS: This review included eight different techniques among the 14 included studies. There was a weighted mean error of 0.5° (range: 0.1°-1.3°) for the mechanical medial proximal tibial angle, 0.6° (range: 0.3°-2.7°) for the posterior tibial slope, and 0.8° (range: 0.1°-1.0°) for the hip-knee-ankle angle. Four studies compared the correctional error of the mechanical axis between conventional techniques and PSI techniques. The comparative difference between the two techniques favoured the use of PSI for MOW-HTOs (standardised mean difference ​= ​0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.87; p ​= ​0.004). Among the 14 studies evaluated, four studies explicitly reported no major complications, while five studies reported a non-zero incidence of major complications. Among these nine studies, the weighted mean major complication rate was 7.1% (range: 0.0-13.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this present systematic review suggest that the use of PSI for MOW-HTOs leads to high accuracy relative to the planned corrections in the coronal plane, sagittal plane, and mechanical axis. Furthermore, these findings would suggest there is a low risk of major complications when implementing PSI for MOW-HTOs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review; IV.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]