Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33363636›Full record

ArticleStrategies in trauma and limb reconstruction

High Tibial Osteotomy for Genu Varum in Adults: Do Proprietary Implants Limit the Quality of Correction?

L N Solomin, D V Chugaev, A V Filippova, P N Kulesh

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

L N SolominNational Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia, Russian Federation.
D V ChugaevNational Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia, Russian Federation.
A V FilippovaDepartment Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia, Russian Federation.
P N KuleshSt. George City Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Russia, Russian Federation.
Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University · RUCity Hospital No. 40 · RUSt Petersburg University · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The surgical technique of proximal tibial osteotomy for genu varum in adults has evolved from a procedure using closing wedges of estimated sizes with staple fixation in the 1960s to using standard trauma internal fixation implants and, more recently, to gradual correction with software-guided hexapod external fixators. In the last two decades, implant manufacturers have also produced anatomical implants specific for such corrective osteotomies. This study evaluates the limits of using such proprietary implants for proximal tibial osteotomy in genu varum. MATERIALS AND

methodsScanograms (teleradiograms) of lower limbs of a patient were used to derive skiagrams (two-dimensional bony outlines of the extremities). From these, two-dimensional and three-dimensional models of varus deformities of the tibia with different values of mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA, from 85° to 40°) were created. An analysis of the created deformity was carried out and a simulation for surgical correction was performed using an open wedge high tibial osteotomy with fixation using a proprietary (Tomofix, Synthes) implant. In addition, a 3D simulation technique was used to check the accuracy of the results obtained from the 2D simulation.

resultsIn cases of mMPTA ≥80° with localisation of the apex of varus deformity at the level of the knee joint line, the standard technique used with the proprietary medial tibial plate produces good results.In cases of mMPTA ≤70°, fixation of the osteotomised fragments by the proprietary medial plate is poor owing to the anatomical contours of the implant. In these cases, a different type of osteosynthesis is needed.In cases of mMPTA ≤70°, the distance between the lower edge of the bone plate and the medial surface of the tibia after a proximal tibial osteotomy exceeds 11 mm and will result in unacceptable soft tissue tension around the implant.Mechanical axis deviation to the Fujisawa point produces mMPTA values outside the reference range of normal values.

conclusionAn osteotomy of the proximal tibia using a prescribed technique linked to a proprietary implant achieves good results only if performed within a certain range of deformity values. Pronounced varus deformities require a fundamentally different approach. This study reveals that surgeons undertaking corrective proximal tibial osteotomies for genu varum need to perform a comprehensive analysis of the deformity to allow for appropriate selection of patients. This will enable a consideration of the size and other characteristics of the deformity that will reduce the technical complications that may arise if the correction was performed using the recommended technique linked to a proprietary implant. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Solomin LN, Chugaev DV, Filippova AV,

Indexed as

Deformity correctionDeformity planningGenu varumLimb deformityLimb reconstructionLocking plateOsteotomyVarus deformity knee

Identifiers

PMID33363636
PMCPMC7744664
OpenAlexW3095044955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.