MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7083434141 · doi:10.1177/2325967125s00062

Paper 05: Clinical Outcomes and Accuracy of Patient-Specific Instrumentation for Corrective High Tibial and Distal Femoral Osteotomy

2025· article· en· W7083434141 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueGeodetic Measurements and Engineering Structures
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCoronal planeHigh tibial osteotomyOsteoarthritisInstrumentation (computer programming)OsteotomyOrthopedic surgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objectives: High tibial osteotomies (HTO) and distal femoral osteotomies (DFO) may be used for a variety of knee pathologies including unicompartmental cartilage disorders and ligamentous instability. A novel instrumentation system for osteotomies utilizing three-dimensional patient-specific instrumentation (3D-PSI) cutting guides has been recently described, however there is limited reporting on the clinical outcomes and accuracy of this system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and accuracy of correction of a 3D-PSI osteotomy system for HTO’s and DFO’s. It was hypothesized that patients would have significant improvements in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and that at least 90% of patients would have coronal alignment within 10% of the planned correction. Methods: A prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent opening wedge (oW) or closing wedge (cW) HTO or DFO utilizing a 3D-PSI system (Fine Osteotomy, Bodycad, Canada) from October 2020 to January 2022 was reviewed.Preoperatively and postoperatively, PROs were collected, including the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC), San Francisco 12 physical component score and mental component scores (SF-12 PCS and MCS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) including the stiffness (WOMAC-stiff), pain (WOMAC-pain), physical function (WOMAC-PF) and total (WOMAC-total) scores, the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and subjective satisfaction (1-10 scale, with 10 indicating maximum satisfaction). A paired t-test was used to evaluate for differences in PRO’s from pre- to postoperatively. To assess coronal and mechanical alignment, mechanical medial tibial width ratio (mMTWr), defined as the distance from the medial aspect of the tibia to the point on the tibia where the mechanical axis intersects the tibial plateau divided by the entire width of the tibial plateau, was measured on standing whole-leg radiographs ( Figure 1 ). Radiographic measurements were performed by two blinded independent raters. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine inter-observer reliability for radiographic measurements between raters and reliability between the raters and the Bodycad software’s pre-operative measurements. To analyze correction accuracy, the differences between the planned final mMTWR based on the preoperative plan and actual measured mMTWr ( Figure 2 ) as well as the percentage of patients within 10% of the planned mMTWR were calculated. This 10% threshold was based on prior studies and corresponds to approximately 2 degrees of tibiofemoral angle. Results: Complete data sets were obtained for 23 cases (16 oW-HTO, 4 oW-DFO, 2 cW-DFO, 1 combined cW-HTO + oW-DFO) at mean follow-up of 2.6 years. Demographics for the cohort are shown in Table 1 . Using a Bonferroni-corrected P value (p<0.006), there were significant improvements from pre- to post-operatively in IKDC, Lysholm, WOMAC-pain, WOMAC-stiffness, WOMAC-physical function, and WOMAC-total scores ( Table 2 ). The ICC’s for pre- and post-operative mMTWR measurements were 0.996 and 0.982, respectively, indicating near perfect agreement. The ICC between the raters pre-operative measurements of mMTWr on whole-leg standing radiographs and the Bodycad measurements of mMTWr based on the 3D CT was 0.985. 89% of patients were within 10% of the planned final mMTWR, and the median difference between the planned and actual correction was 3.7% (95% CI, 2.8 – 8.4). Excluding patients who underwent removal of hardware, 22% (5/23) of patients had at least one related reoperation. Survivorship, defined as patients who did not undergo revision osteotomy or arthroplasty, was 21/23 knees (91%). Conclusions: This study found that patients who underwent corrective HTO or DFO using PSI had significant improvements in PRO’s, and there was good accuracy, 89%, of coronal correction. These findings demonstrate that osteotomy utilizing 3D-PSI can lead to clinically meaningful improvements in patient function with high accuracy of planned correction. While the median difference of 3.7% between the planned and actual correction is less than 1 degree, the presence of outliers emphasizes the importance of meticulous surgical technique and abiding by osteotomy principles even when utilizing 3D PSI. This study adds to a growing body of literature that corrective osteotomies can significantly improve patients’ quality of life and knee function in the treatment of chondral and meniscal pathologies and provides early data on the accuracy and outcomes of a newly released 3D PSI osteotomy system for HTO’s and DFO’s.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineMême sujetGeodetic Measurements and Engineering StructuresTravaux en français237 207