Is patient-specific instrumentation more precise than conventional techniques and navigation in achieving planned correction in high tibial osteotomy?

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative planning in high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a critical step for achieving the desired correction and a clinically satisfactory outcome. Conventional radiography, navigation assistance and patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) are the 3 means of planning, but no prospective studies have compared precision between the 3. The aims of the present study were: (1) to analyze and compare correction precision between the 3 planning approaches at 1 year's follow-up; (2) to compare results to those reported in the literature; and (3) to analyze factors influencing the achievement of planned correction.

HYPOTHESIS

The study hypothesis was that PSI provides more precise and reproducible planned correction than conventional methods or navigation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Between June 2017 and June 2018, a multicenter non-randomized prospective observational study was conducted in 11 centers. One hundred and twenty-six patients with Ahlbäck grade I, II or III idiopathic medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis with stable knee were included and allocated to 3 preoperative planning groups: conventional (group 1), navigation (group 2) and PSI (group 3). Mean age at surgery was 51.2 years (range, 19-69 years; median, 53.2 years); 100 male, 26 female. Complete weight-bearing radiographic work-up was performed preoperatively and at 1 year's follow-up. The PSI group also underwent CT as part of guide production. Target angular correction and mechanical Hip-Knee-Ankle (HKA) axis were set preoperatively. The main endpoint was the difference between planned HKA and HKA at a minimum 12 months.

RESULTS

Mean HKA difference was 1.1±3 in group 1, 2.1±2.6 in group 2 and 0.3±3.1 in group 3. Precision was better with PSI, but not significantly when comparing all 3 groups together. On pairwise intergroup comparison, there was a significant difference only between groups 2 and 3, in favor of PSI (P=0.011).

DISCUSSION

None of the 3 techniques demonstrated superiority in achieving target correction at 1 year. The study hypothesis was thus not confirmed. All 3 techniques proved reliable and precise in HTO planning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, prospective non-randomized comparative study.