Potential anatomic risk factors resulting oversized postoperative medial proximal tibial angle after double level osteotomy.

BACKGROUND: Double level osteotomy (DLO) has been introduced to prevent increased postoperative joint line obliquity. However, although DLO is planned, knees with postoperative medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) > 95° in preoperative surgical planning are present. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate risk factors for an MPTA > 95° in preoperative surgical planning for DLO in patients with varus knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A total of 168 knees that underwent osteotomies around the knee for varus knee OA were enrolled. The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), weight-bearing line (WBL) ratio, mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), joint line convergence angle (JLCA) and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) were measured on preoperative radiographs. The postoperative WBL ratio was planned to be 62.5%. When the postoperative mMPTA was more than 95° in isolated high tibial osteotomy (HTO), (DLO) was planned so that the postoperative mLDFA was 85°, and residual deformity was corrected by HTO. Knees with postoperative mMPTA ≤ 95° and > 95° were classified into the correctable group and uncorrectable group, respectively. RESULTS: DLO was required in 101 knees (60.1%). Among them, 41 knees (40.6%) were classified into the uncorrectable group. Binomial logistic regression analysis showed that preoperative JLCA and mMPTA were independent predictors in the uncorrectable group. CONCLUSIONS: Even with DLO, postoperative mMPTA was more than 95° in approximately 40% of cases. Preoperative increased JLCA and decreased mMPTA were risk factors for a postoperative mMPTA of > 95° after DLO.

Surgical planning of osteotomies around the knee differs between preoperative standing and supine radiographs in nearly half of cases.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the difference in surgical planning of osteotomies around the knee between preoperative standing and supine radiographs and to identify risk factors for discrepancies in surgical planning. METHODS: This study included 117 knees of 100 patients who underwent osteotomies around the knee for knee osteoarthritis with genu varum. Surgical planning was performed so that the target point of the postoperative weight-bearing line (WBL) ratio was 62.5% in preoperative standing and supine radiographs. If the opening gap would be > 13 mm in open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO), closed-wedge HTO (CWHTO) was planned. If the postoperative mMPTA would be > 95° in isolated HTO, double-level osteotomy (DLO) was planned. In DLO, lateral closed-wedge distal femoral osteotomy was performed so that the postoperative mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) was 85°, and any residual varus deformity was corrected with HTO. RESULTS: Surgical planning differed between standing and supine radiographs in 43.6% of cases. In all knees for which surgical planning differed between standing and supine radiographs, a more invasive type of osteotomy was suggested by standing radiographs than by supine radiographs. The risk factors for discrepancies in surgical planning were a lower WBL ratio in standing radiographs and a lower joint line convergence angle in supine radiographs. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical planning of DLO, CWHTO and OWHTO, in standing radiographs differed from that in supine radiographs in nearly half of the cases. Surgical planning based on standing radiographs leads to more invasive surgical procedures compared to supine radiographs.

Risk of interference between the tibial tunnel and locking screws in medial meniscus posterior root repair and open wedge high tibial osteotomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the frequency of interference between locking screws for the plate fixation and tibial tunnels differs depending on the tibial tunnel positions in a surgical simulation of the transtibial pull-out repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) in patients undergoing biplanar open wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO). METHODS: Sixty-five patients (75 knees) who underwent OWHTO with TomoFix small plate (Depuy Synthes, PA, USA) for medial knee osteoarthritis with varus malalignment were enrolled in this study. Surgical simulation of transtibial pull-out repair of MMPRTs was performed using postoperative computed tomography images. The tibial tunnel was created in the anatomical attachment area of the medial meniscus posterior root. Another aperture of the tibial tunnel was created on the anteromedial (AM) tibial cortex, the posteromedial (PM) tibial cortex, and the anterolateral (AL) tibial cortex in the proximal tibial fragment. The frequency of interference between the tibial tunnel and A-D locking screws was compared in the 3 tibial tunnel positions. In each tibial tunnel position, the locking plate position with and without interference between the tibial tunnel and at least one locking screw was compared. RESULTS: For screw A, the frequency of interference with the tibial tunnel in the AL position was higher than that in the AM (P = 0.048) and PM positions (P <  0.001). For screws B and C, the frequency of interference with the tibial tunnel in the AM position was higher than that in the PM (P <  0.001, P = 0.007) and AL positions (P <  0.001, P = 0.001), respectively. For screw D, there was no difference in the frequency of interference with the tibial tunnel among the three positions. The frequency of interference between the tibial tunnel and at least one screw in the AM position was 100%, which was higher than that in the PM (P <  0.001) and AL positions (P <  0.001). In the PM position, the locking plate was placed more posteriorly in the group where the locking screw interfered with the tibial tunnel. In the AL position, the locking plate was placed more parallel to the medial/lateral axis of the tibial plateau in the interference group. CONCLUSION: Making the tibial tunnel in the AM position should be avoided because interference with locking screws was inevitable. When the tibial tunnel is created in the PM position, interference between the tibial tunnel and screw C should be paid attention. Anterior placement of the locking plate could be useful to prevent interference between locking screws and the tibial tunnel in the PM position. In addition, when the tibial tunnel is created in the AL position, interference between the tibial tunnel and especially screw A among screws A-C should be paid attention. Placing the locking plate in an anteromedial direction could be useful to prevent interference between locking screws and the tibial tunnel in the AL position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.