Indications and outcomes of simultaneous high tibial osteotomy and ACL reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the existing literature reporting surgical outcomes of simultaneous high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in anterior cruciate ligament deficient (ACLD) knees. METHODS: This study was conducted per the methods of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention, with findings reported per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for relevant studies and pertinent data was extracted. Studies reporting post-operative outcomes following simultaneous HTO and ACLR in ACLD knees were included. RESULTS: The search identified 515 studies, of which 18 (n = 516) were included. The mean MINORS scores for non-comparative and comparative studies were 11.6 ± 1.34 and 17.3 ± 1.9, respectively. Simultaneous HTO and ACLR resulted in improved functional subjective patient outcomes across a variety of scales. Simultaneous HTO and ACLR was effective in correcting varus angulation, with the post-operative mechanical angle ranging from 0.3° valgus to 7.7° valgus. The reported complication rate ranged from 0 to 23.5%. Across six studies, a total of 13 (6.5%) patients required revision HTO; while across four studies, 20 (17.5%) patients had failure of the ACL graft, with one receiving revision ACLR. CONCLUSIONS: Combined HTO and ACLR may be indicated in patients with ACLD knees with varus angulation. This systematic review found that the combined surgery resulted in significant improvement in post-operative functional subjective outcomes. However, it remains unclear if HTO with ACLR is superior to ALCR or HTO alone due to the lack of comparative studies. Overall, HTO with ACLR was found to have low rates of complications, re-ruptures, and need for revision surgery. This review found that patients continued to have progression of OA despite combined HTO with ACLR. Future research is required to better understand the effects of combined HTO and ACLR compared to ACLR or HTO alone and to evaluate the long-term post-operative progression of medial compartment OA following combined HTO and ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".