Simulation study analyzes bone resection volume and lateral overhang in four closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy techniques, suggesting benefits of hybrids.
Purpose: This study aimed to quantitatively compare the resected bony wedge volume and evaluate discrepancies in the non-overlapping lateral osteotomy surface areas among four closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy (CWHTO) techniques. Materials and Methods: Eleven knees from 10 patients who underwent high tibial osteotomy at our hospital (2016–2023) were analyzed using preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography. Representative cases were selected based on sex, the presence of proximal tibia vara, and a high joint line convergence angle. A subgroup analysis was then conducted. Surgical simulations were performed on reconstructed bone models using four different CWHTO techniques (conventional, oblique, hybrid 2:1, and hybrid 3:1) at three target angles (12°, 15°, and 18°). Osteotomy surface area and bony wedge volume were calculated and compared. Results: Distal osteotomy surface areas for the oblique, hybrid 1, and hybrid 2 techniques were 91%, 83%, and 72% of the conventional technique, respectively. Resected bony wedge volumes were 86%, 52%, and 38% of the conventional technique, respectively. Volumes decreased in the order of conventional, oblique, hybrid 3:1, and hybrid 2:1. Hybrid techniques showed significantly smaller resection volumes than the conventional and oblique techniques. The non-overlapping lateral osteotomy surface areas for oblique, hybrid 1, and hybrid 2 were 41% (lateral), 22% (medial), and 22% (medial) of the conventional technique, respectively. Only the conventional technique showed a statistically significant difference. Conclusions: Hybrid CWHTO techniques resulted in less bony wedge resection and fewer non-overlapping osteotomy surfaces compared with conventional and oblique techniques. Hybrid CWHTO may offer potential advantages in bone stock preservation and reduced lateral overhanging area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jung et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: