No benefits of knee osteotomy patient's specific instrumentation in experienced surgeon hands

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) with the conventional free hand (FH) technique in performing coronal plane corrective knee osteotomies in terms of limb alignment and functional scores. The hypothesis is that conventional FH technique in experienced hands with proper pre-operative planning is as precise as PSI.

Methods: Patients who underwent coronal plane corrective knee osteotomies with either PSI or FH technique between 2017 and 2019 by the same senior surgeon and have a minimum of 2 years follow-up period were included in this study. A total of 91 knees (84 patients) with mean age of 42.9 ± 12.5 years who had a pre- and post-operative complete weight-bearing radiographic work-up (50 of them were performed with the FH technique and 41 by means of PSI) were included for comparison. The data were retrospectively reviewed both radiologically and clinically using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) sub-scores. All cases in both groups were evaluated for the following measurements: hip-knee-ankle (HKA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and joint line convergence angle (JLCA) both preoperatively and postoperatively. In addition, FH and PSI osteotomy cases were also compared for their precision in achieving the target correction that was planned preoperatively. All cases were also evaluated clinically preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up using KOOS sub-scores and the two groups were compared.

Results: The mean HKA precision was 1.5 ± 0.9 in FH group and 1.3 ± 0.7 in PSI (P value = n.s.), the mean MPTA precision was 1.6 ± 1.6 in FH group and 2.1 ± 1.2 in PSI (P value = n.s.), the mean m-LDFA precision was 1.9 ± 1.7 in FH group and 1.4 ± 1.3 in PSI (P value = n.s.), and the mean JLCA precision in the FH group was 1.5 ± 1.2 and 1.7 ± 1.2 in PSI (P value = n.s.). For all the radiographic parameters, there were no statistically significant differences between the target correction and the obtained correction in both groups. Moreover, PSI and FH techniques were comparable in terms of clinical outcomes and no significant difference was found between the two groups in any of the 2-year follow-up KOOS sub-scores.

Conclusion: Conventional FH method in the hands of experienced surgeons is as precise as PSI in reliably achieving the planned correction in different coronal plane knee corrective osteotomies. Moreover, there was also no difference between both methods in the 2-year clinical outcome scores.

Keywords: Clinical Outcome; HTO; Knee; Osteotomies; Patient Specific Instrumentation.