van Egmond N, van Grinsven S, van Loon C J M, Gaasbeek R D, van Kampen A
Department of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedics, Rijnstate Hospital Arnhem, Wagnerlaan 55, 6800 TA, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Jan;24(1):34-41. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3303-z. Epub 2014 Sep 13.
Studies comparing mid- or long-term outcomes of open- and closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy are limited. Here, the midterm survival rate and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared for these two techniques. The study hypothesis, based on short-term follow-up, was that after midterm follow-up, the two techniques would not differ.
A prospective follow-up study was conducted for a previously reported randomized controlled trial of an original 50 patients (25 open-wedge osteotomy and 25 closed-wedge osteotomy) with medial knee osteoarthritis and a varus leg alignment. We analyzed patients without knee arthroplasty (mean age 48.7 years, SD 8.0) for clinical and radiographic follow-up.
Five patients in each group had undergone conversion to a total knee arthroplasty or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, leaving 19 patients for analysis in each group. At 7.9 years of follow-up (range 7-9 years), survival did not differ significantly between groups (open-wedge group 81.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 75.2-100], closed-wedge group 82.0% [95% CI 66.7-100]). At final follow-up, total Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC), Knee Society Score, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain did not differ between groups. However, the results were significantly better in the closed-wedge group for VAS satisfaction and WOMAC pain and stiffness compared to the open-wedge group. Radiographic evaluation did not differ between groups for any outcome at final follow-up.
After a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, patients undergoing a closed-wedge osteotomy had favorable clinical results compared to those who underwent an open-wedge osteotomy.
II.
比较开放性和闭合性楔形高位胫骨截骨术的中期或长期疗效的研究有限。在此,对这两种技术的中期生存率以及临床和影像学结果进行了比较。基于短期随访的研究假设是,中期随访后,这两种技术不会有差异。
对先前报道的一项针对50例(25例行开放性楔形截骨术和25例行闭合性楔形截骨术)内侧膝关节骨关节炎且下肢呈内翻畸形患者的随机对照试验进行前瞻性随访研究。我们对未进行膝关节置换术的患者(平均年龄48.7岁,标准差8.0)进行了临床和影像学随访。
每组有5例患者已转为全膝关节置换术或单髁膝关节置换术,每组剩下19例患者进行分析。在7.9年的随访期(范围7 - 9年),两组之间的生存率无显著差异(开放性楔形截骨术组81.3% [95%置信区间(CI) 75.2 - 100],闭合性楔形截骨术组82.0% [95% CI 66.7 - 100])。在末次随访时,两组之间的荷兰西部安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)总分、膝关节协会评分以及视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分无差异。然而,与开放性楔形截骨术组相比,闭合性楔形截骨术组在VAS满意度以及WOMAC疼痛和僵硬方面的结果显著更好。在末次随访时,两组之间的任何影像学评估结果均无差异。
平均随访7.9年后,与接受开放性楔形截骨术的患者相比,接受闭合性楔形截骨术的患者具有良好的临床结果。
II级