ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the European consensus was to provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with a painful degenerative varus knee using a joint preservation approach. Part II focused on surgery, rehabilitation and complications after tibial or femoral correction osteotomy. METHODS: Ninety-four orthopaedic surgeons from 24 countries across Europe were involved in the consensus, which focused on osteotomies around the knee. The consensus was performed according to the European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy consensus methodology. The steering group designed the questions and prepared the statements based on the experience of the experts and the evidence of the literature. The statements were evaluated by the ratings of the peer-review groups before a final consensus was released. RESULTS: The ideal hinge position for medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOW HTO) should be at the upper level of the proximal tibiofibular joint, and for lateral closing wedge distal femoral osteotomy (LCW DFO) just above the medial femoral condyle. Hinge protection is not mandatory. Biplanar osteotomy cuts provide more stability and quicker bony union for both MOW HTO and LCW DFO and are especially recommended for the latter. Osteotomy gap filling is not mandatory, unless structural augmentation for stability is required. Patient-specific instrumentation should be reserved for complex cases by experienced hands. Early full weight-bearing can be adopted after osteotomy, regardless of the technique. However, extra caution should be exercised in DFO patients. Osteotomy patients should return to sports within 6 months. CONCLUSION: Clear recommendations for surgical strategy, rehabilitation and complications of knee osteotomies for the painful degenerative varus knee were demonstrated. In Part 2 of the consensus, high levels of agreement were reached by experts throughout Europe, under variable working conditions. Where science is limited, the collated expertise of the collaborators aimed at providing guidance for orthopaedic surgeons developing an interest in the field and highlighting areas for potential future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, consensus.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The European consensus was designed with the objective of combining science and expertise to produce recommendations that would educate and provide guidance in the treatment of the painful degenerative varus knee. Part I focused on indications and planning. METHODS: Ninety-four orthopaedic surgeons from 24 European countries were involved in the consensus, which focused on the most common indications for osteotomy around the knee. The consensus was performed according to an established ESSKA methodology. The questions and recommendations made were initially designed by the consensus steering group. And 'best possible' answers were provided based upon the scientific evidence available and the experience of the experts. The statements produced were further evaluated by ratings and peer review groups before a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: There is no reliable evidence to exclude patients based on age, gender or body weight. An individualised approach is advised; however, cessation of smoking is recommended. The same applies to lesser degrees of patellofemoral and lateral compartment arthritis, which may be accepted in certain situations. Good-quality limb alignment and knee radiographs are a mandatory requirement for planning of osteotomies, and Paley's angles and normal ranges are recommended when undertaking deformity analysis. Emphasis is placed upon the correct level at which correction of varus malalignment is performed, which may involve double-level osteotomy. This includes recognition of the importance of individual bone morphology and the maintenance of a physiologically appropriate joint line orientation. CONCLUSION: The indications of knee osteotomies for painful degenerative varus knees are broad. Part I of the consensus highlights the versatility of the procedure to address multiple scenarios with bespoke planning for each case. Deformity analysis is mandatory for defining the bone morphology, the site of the deformity and planning the correct procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, consensus.
