Economic evaluation of high tibial osteotomy: Closing wedge is more cost-effective than open wedge technique when analysing the KOOS-12 improvement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two techniques for performing a knee valgus osteotomy: opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (OW-HTO) vs closing wedge high tibial osteotomy (CW-HTO). METHODS: In this economic evaluation study, a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Spanish public healthcare system was performed, comparing OW-HTO with CW-HTO. All patients with medial knee osteoarthritis who underwent one of these procedures between 2018 and 2020 in our institution were included. The cost analysis included operating room, implant, graft and hospital admission costs. Functional outcomes (KOOS-12, Tegner activity scale, pain and satisfaction) and radiological outcomes (hip-knee-ankle angle, medial proximal tibial angle, tibial slope and patellar height) were analysed. The cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained by calculating the cost of improving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of KOOS-12 for each procedure. All costs are expressed in 2020 euros. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients met the inclusion criteria (27 OW-HTO and 24 CW-HTO). Good to excellent functional outcomes, significant pain reduction (>6 points) and high patient satisfaction (>9/10) were observed in both groups. Both techniques yielded excellent radiological outcomes. N.s. differences in functional or radiological outcomes improvements between both procedures were found. However, the OW-HTO group presented a higher total cost than the CW-HTO group (4612.1 ± 765.6€ vs. 1827.1 ± 701.9€; p < 0.001). The cost-effectiveness ratio was 818.1 ± 46.8 €/MCID for the CW-HTO procedure and 2414.3 ± 115.2 €/MCID for the OW-HTO procedure (p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: The CW-HTO procedure presented a cost-effectiveness ratio almost three times lower than the OW-HTO procedure. Both techniques allowed to achieve of good to excellent functional outcomes, significant pain reduction and high patient satisfaction while correcting the varus limb malalignment and the metaphyseal tibial varus in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; economic study.

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.

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 â€‹= â€‹0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.87; p â€‹= â€‹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.