Comparison and Validation of Preoperative Planning Techniques for Distal Femoral Osteotomies and Proximal Tibial Osteotomies

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Preoperative planning is important for accurate intraoperative execution in many surgical fields. Planning for distal femoral osteotomies (DFOs) and proximal tibial osteotomies (PTOs) consists of choosing the level of the osteotomy, measuring the angle of the osteotomy based on hip-knee-ankle alignment, and choosing a proper osteotomy wedge size. Medical imaging IT solutions company Sectra has implemented a new osteotomy tool in their radiographic system that is simpler than the accepted standard of modified center of rotation of angulation (mCORA) technique, yet unvalidated. In this study, we aim to compare the Sectra osteotomy tool versus the mCORA technique to measure the osteotomy angles as well as wedge sizes in both DFOs and PTOs to validate this new tool.

We enrolled n = 30 consecutive patients with DFOs and n = 30 PTOs from the last year. The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) along with descriptive statistics was used to evaluate for similarity between the two techniques. We also compared interobserver and intraobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

The PCC for osteotomy angles in DFOs and PTOs were both 0.998 (p < 0.001 for both). For wedge sizes, the PCC in DFOs was 0.993 and 0.980 in PTOs (p < 0.001 for both). ICCs were high for both interobserver measurements in osteotomy angles and wedge sizes (range: 0.989–0.999) as well as intraobserver measurements (0.994–0.999).

The Sectra osteotomy tool is a validated tool for preoperative measurements of DFOs and PTOs. It is reliable and simpler than the current practice of the mCORA technique. We suggest future studies to analyze this Sectra osteotomy tool in other settings as to incorporate it into widespread clinical use.

Publication History

Received: 18 June 2019

Accepted: 21 March 2020

Article published online:
19 May 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• References

• 1 Essig H, Rana M, Kokemueller H. et al. Pre-operative planning for mandibular reconstruction - a full digital planning workflow resulting in a patient specific reconstruction. Head Neck Oncol 2011; 3: 45
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Haggerty CM, de Zélicourt DA, Restrepo M. et al. Comparing pre- and post-operative Fontan hemodynamic simulations: implications for the reliability of surgical planning. Ann Biomed Eng 2012; 40 (12) 2639-2651
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Nava MB, Rocco N, Tunesi G, Catanuto G, Rancati A, Dorr J. Decisional pathways in breast augmentation: how to improve outcomes through accurate pre-operative planning. Gland Surg 2017; 6 (02) 203-209
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Paccola CA. Pre-operative planning and surgical technique of the open wedge supracondylar osteotomy for correction of valgus knee and fixation with a fixed-angle implant. Rev Bras Ortop 2015; 45 (06) 627-635
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Sefcik RK, Rasouli J, Bederson JB, Shrivastava RK. Three-dimensional, computer simulated navigation in endoscopic neurosurgery. Interdiscip Neurosurg 2017; 8: 17-22
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Duethman NC, Bernard CD, Camp CL, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ. Medial closing wedge distal femoral osteotomy. Clin Sports Med 2019; 38 (03) 361-373
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Elattar O, Swarup I, Lam A, Nguyen J, Fragomen A, Rozbruch SR. Open wedge distal femoral osteotomy: accuracy of correction and patient outcomes. HSS J 2017; 13 (02) 128-135
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Grunwald L, Angele P, Schroter S. et al. Patients' expectations of osteotomies around the knee are high regarding activities of daily living. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (09) 3022-3031
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Hoorntje A, van Ginneken BT, Kuijer P. et al. Eight respectively nine out of ten patients return to sport and work after distal femoral osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (07) 2345-2353
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Voleti PB, Wu IT, Degen RM, Tetreault DM, Krych AJ, Williams III RJ. Successful return to sport following distal femoral varus osteotomy. Cartilage 2019; 10 (01) 19-25
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Zampogna B, Vasta S, Papalia R. Patient evaluation and indications for osteotomy around the knee. Clin Sports Med 2019; 38 (03) 305-315
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Fabricant PD, Camara JM, Rozbruch SR. Femoral deformity planning: intentional placement of the apex of deformity. Orthopedics 2013; 36 (05) e533-e537
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Paley D, Herzenberg JE, Tetsworth K, McKie J, Bhave A. Deformity planning for frontal and sagittal plane corrective osteotomies. Orthop Clin North Am 1994; 25 (03) 425-465
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Kulkarni G. Principles and practice of deformity correction. Indian J Orthop 2004; 38 (03) 191-198
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 1994; 6 (04) 284-290
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15 (02) 155-163
  Google Scholar
• 17 Paley D, Tetsworth K. Mechanical axis deviation of the lower limbs. Preoperative planning of multiapical frontal plane angular and bowing deformities of the femur and tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (280) 65-71
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Barksfield RC, Monsell FP. Predicting translational deformity following opening-wedge osteotomy for lower limb realignment. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 2015; 10 (03) 167-173
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Segev E, Hemo Y, Wientroub S. et al. Intra- and interobserver reliability analysis of digital radiographic measurements for pediatric orthopedic parameters using a novel PACS integrated computer software program. J Child Orthop 2010; 4 (04) 331-341
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Khakharia S, Bigman D, Fragomen AT, Pavlov H, Rozbruch SR. Comparison of PACS and hard-copy 51-inch radiographs for measuring leg length and deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (01) 244-250
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Sailer J, Scharitzer M, Peloschek P, Giurea A, Imhof H, Grampp S. Quantification of axial alignment of the lower extremity on conventional and digital total leg radiographs. Eur Radiol 2005; 15 (01) 170-173
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Steinhaus ME, Buksbaum J, Eisenman A, Kohli M, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Tranexamic acid reduces postoperative blood loss in distal femoral osteotomy. J Knee Surg 2020; 33 (05) 440-444
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Da Cunha RJ, Kraszewski AP, Hillstrom HJ, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Biomechanical and functional improvements gained by proximal tibia osteotomy correction of genu varum in patients with knee pain. HSS J 2020; 16 (01) 30-38
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Ashfaq K, Fragomen AT, Nguyen JT, Rozbruch SR. Correction of proximal tibia varus with external fixation. J Knee Surg 2012; 25 (05) 375-384
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Rozbruch SR, Segal K, Ilizarov S, Fragomen AT, Ilizarov G. Does the Taylor spatial frame accurately correct tibial deformities?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (05) 1352-1361
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar