ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
Comparison of Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning Measurements for High Tibial Osteotomy.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative joint line convergence angle predicts correction accuracy after medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Comparison of Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning Measurements for High Tibial Osteotomy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveKnee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a prevalent condition characterized by cartilage degeneration, tissue destruction, and bone hyperplasia, with pain being the primary symptom. High tibial osteotomy (HTO) has emerged as an effective treatment for symptomatic unicompartmental KOA, focusing on realigning force vectors to redistribute mechanical stress and alleviate pain. This study aims to address the question of whether two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) preoperative planning methods yield different correction angles and distraction distances in open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO). By comparing these methodologies, we seek to evaluate their impact on surgical outcomes and patient prognosis.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted involving patients diagnosed with unicompartmental medial knee osteoarthritis (KOA) who exhibited deviations in the mechanical axis of the lower limbs. These patients underwent OWHTO between January 2021 and August 2022. Both 3D and 2D preoperative planning procedures for OWHTO were employed, targeting an ideal alignment with the weight-bearing line (%WBL) set at 62.5%. The study quantitatively assessed the differences in correction angles and distraction distances associated with the two surgical planning methods using paired t-tests and non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
resultsThe study comprised a total of 102 patients. It was observed that the mean correction angle in the 2D approach was significantly greater than that recorded in the 3D approach (p < 0.001), with an average difference of 1.49° ± 1.70°. The medial opening gap differences for OWHTO between the two approaches measured 2.1 ± 2.06 mm.
conclusionsTo summarize, the 2D preoperative planning method for OWHTO necessitates a larger correction angle and a wider medial opening gap relative to the 3D planning approach when aiming for the same WBL. Therefore, it is crucial for surgeons to take into account the variances between 2D and 3D planning and to evaluate potential correction errors during the surgical procedure while strategizing for OWHTO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.