Comparison of double chevron-cut and biplanar distal femoral osteotomy techniques: A biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the stability and mechanical properties of the double chevron-cut (DCC) and biplanar (BP) distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) techniques, along with analyzing their respective contact surface areas.

METHODS

Biomechanical testing was performed using sawbone and 3D modeling techniques to assess axial and torsional stability, torsional stiffness, and maximum torque of both osteotomy configurations. Additionally, 3D models of the sawbone femur were created to calculate and compare the contact surface area of the DCC, BP, and conventional single-plane DFO techniques.

RESULTS

Axial stiffness and maximum strength did not significantly differ between the two osteotomy techniques. However, in terms of torsional properties, the DCC technique exhibited superior torsional stiffness compared to the BP group (27 ± 7.7 Nm/° vs. 4.5 ± 1.5 Nm/°, p = 0.008). Although the difference in maximum torque did not reach statistical significance (63 ± 10.6 vs. 56 ± 12.1, p = 0.87), it is noteworthy that the DCC group sawbone model exhibited fracture in the shaft region instead of at the osteotomy site. Therefore, the actual maximum torque of the DCC construct may not be accurately reflected by the numerical values obtained in this study. The contact surface area analysis revealed that the BP configuration had the largest contact surface area, 111% larger than that of the single-plane configuration. but 60% of it relied on the less reliable axial cut. Conversely, the DCC osteotomy offered a 31% larger contact surface area than the single-plane configuration, with both surfaces being weight-bearing.

CONCLUSION

The DCC osteotomy exhibited superior mechanical stability, showing improved rotational stiffness and maximum torque when compared to the BP osteotomy. Although the BP osteotomy resulted in a larger contact surface area than the DCC osteotomy, both were larger than the conventional single-plane configuration. In clinical practice, both the DCC and BP techniques should be evaluated based on patient-specific characteristics and surgical goals.