Progress in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis with high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) has been used for over 60 years in clinical practice and mainly comprises two major techniques: closed wedge high tibial osteotomy (CWHTO) and open wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO). However, these have been gradually replaced by total knee arthroplasty (TKA), due to inconsistent clinical results and many complications. With the concept of knee-protection and ladder treatment of osteoarthritis, as an effective minimally invasive treatment for knee osteoarthritis, HTO has once again received attention. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, ClinicalKey, CNKI, and the China Wanfang database. The search terms relating to osteoarthritis and high tibial osteotomy were used. Studies were considered eligible if the participants were adults with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) who had undergone HTO. A total of two reviewers participated in the selection of the studies. Reviewer 1 was assigned to screen titles and abstracts, and reviewer 2 to screen full-text data. Data extraction was completed by reviewer 2, and 30% were checked by the research team. Potential conflicts were resolved through discussion. The methodological quality was assessed using a risk of bias, based on the Cochrane handbook and Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. The outcome indicators are (1) posterior slope of tibial plateau, (2) the height of the patella, (3) fracture in the osteotomy plane, (4) survival rate, (5) special surgery knee score (HSS), and (6) the recurrence of varus deformity of the included studies were evaluated according to the guidelines of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group (Atkins et al., BMJ 328:1490, 2004). RESULTS: Among the 18 articles included, 10 were prospective cohort studies, five were randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, one was prospective comparative study (PCS), one was retrospective comparative study (RCS), and one was retrospective cohort. The earliest publication year was 1999, and the most recent was 2018. A total of 6555 eligible cases were included, comprised of 3351 OWHTO patients and 3204 CWHTO patients. Five RCT were assessed using risk of bias, based on the Cochrane handbook. Eleven cohort studies and two case-control studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. These six outcome indicators for a total of twenty-four evidence individuals were evaluated separately, among which the GRADE classification of 1, 2, and 6 was medium quality, and 3, 4, and 5 were low quality. Based on our systematic review, regardless of whether the chosen procedure was OWHTO or CWHTO, both HSS scores increased significantly as compared with the preoperative scores. Compared with CWHTO, the height of the patella and tibial posterior slope angle increased following OWHTO. Additionally, OWHTO has a better long-term survival rate and lower fracture rate, supporting OWHTO as the first treatment choice. CONCLUSIONS: For young patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), high tibial osteotomy (HTO) can be considered as a treatment option to replace total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to reduce the economic burden and promote the reasonable allocation of medical resources. This study shows that compared with CWHTO, OWHTO has certain advantages in long-term survival rate and lower fracture rate, but the level of evidence is lower. In the future, we will need larger sample sizes and longer follow-up randomized controlled trials to improve our research.
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".