Decision making for concomitant high tibial osteotomy (HTO) in cartilage repair patients based on a nationwide cohort study of 4968 patients.
Cartilage repair
Cartilage surgery
Concomitant surgery
Factors
High tibial osteotomy
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
03
12
2019
pubmed:
25
5
2020
medline:
27
1
2021
entrez:
25
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
High tibial osteotomy (HTO) for varus deformities is a common concomitant treatment in cartilage surgery. Aim of the present study was to analyze factors influencing the decision towards accompanying HTO in patients with cartilage defects of the medial femoral condyle, such as the amount of varus deformity. Data from 4986 patients treated for cartilage defects of the knee from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU) were used for the current analysis. Seven hundred and thirty-six patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Their data were analyzed for factors influencing the decision towards performing a concomitant HTO using t test, univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression models. The break point at which the majority of patients receive a concomitant HTO is 3° of varus deformity. Several factors apart from the amount of varus deformity (5.61 ± 2.73° vs. 1.72 ± 2.38°, p < 0.00) differed significantly between the group of patients with HTO and those without. These included defect size (441.6 ± 225.3 mm Based upon data from a nationwide cohort, additional HTO in context with cartilage repair procedures of the medial femoral condyle is frequently performed even in mild varus deformities less than 5°. Other factors also seem to influence decision for HTO.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
High tibial osteotomy (HTO) for varus deformities is a common concomitant treatment in cartilage surgery. Aim of the present study was to analyze factors influencing the decision towards accompanying HTO in patients with cartilage defects of the medial femoral condyle, such as the amount of varus deformity.
METHODS
METHODS
Data from 4986 patients treated for cartilage defects of the knee from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU) were used for the current analysis. Seven hundred and thirty-six patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Their data were analyzed for factors influencing the decision towards performing a concomitant HTO using t test, univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression models.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The break point at which the majority of patients receive a concomitant HTO is 3° of varus deformity. Several factors apart from the amount of varus deformity (5.61 ± 2.73° vs. 1.72 ± 2.38°, p < 0.00) differed significantly between the group of patients with HTO and those without. These included defect size (441.6 ± 225.3 mm
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon data from a nationwide cohort, additional HTO in context with cartilage repair procedures of the medial femoral condyle is frequently performed even in mild varus deformities less than 5°. Other factors also seem to influence decision for HTO.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32447445
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03476-6
pii: 10.1007/s00402-020-03476-6
pmc: PMC8277607
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1437-1444Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Knee. 2016 Mar;23(2):276-82
pubmed: 26596554
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Oct;23(10):3026-37
pubmed: 26294054
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004 Nov;124(9):575-84
pubmed: 15480717
Orthop Clin North Am. 2005 Oct;36(4):497-504
pubmed: 16164954
Am J Sports Med. 2008 May;36(5):949-55
pubmed: 18413679
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 Feb;138(2):227-236
pubmed: 29143167
Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2007 Mar;21(1):41-50
pubmed: 17385104
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Feb 08;6(2):2325967117752623
pubmed: 29450205
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;42(6):1384-94
pubmed: 24714783
J Orthop Traumatol. 2011 Mar;12(1):1-17
pubmed: 21107635
J Knee Surg. 2007 Jul;20(3):210-5
pubmed: 17665783
Z Orthop Unfall. 2017 Aug;155(4):457-467
pubmed: 28521382
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 Jan;133(1):43-9
pubmed: 23109095
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2017 May 24;62(3):315-320
pubmed: 27567597
Int Orthop. 2015 Apr;39(4):689-96
pubmed: 25300396
Arthroscopy. 2019 Jan;35(1):147-148
pubmed: 30611342
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2017 Aug;29(4):294-305
pubmed: 28642979
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jun;139(6):743-750
pubmed: 30673869
Arthroscopy. 2007 Aug;23(8):852-61
pubmed: 17681207
J Knee Surg. 2019 Jan;32(1):85-90
pubmed: 29490400
Arthroscopy. 2017 Feb;33(2):486-492
pubmed: 27773639
Arthroscopy. 2019 Jan;35(1):171-178
pubmed: 30611347
Am J Sports Med. 2018 May;46(6):1343-1351
pubmed: 29565642
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Jul 10;7(7):2325967119854442
pubmed: 31317047
J Orthop. 2014 Oct 03;11(4):192-6
pubmed: 25561756
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006 Feb;14(2):190-5
pubmed: 16275143
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Apr 15;55(2):306-13
pubmed: 16583430
Knee. 2016 Jun;23(3):426-35
pubmed: 26947215
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Jan;21(1):170-80
pubmed: 22744433