Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 Aug;41(8):3200-3213.e2.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.11.002. Epub 2024 Nov 10.

Medial Opening Wedge Versus Lateral Closing Wedge (LCW) High Tibial Osteotomies for Knee Medial Compartment Osteoarthritis Show Similar Outcomes and Survivorship, While Medial Opening Wedge Has Higher Rates of Tibial Fracture and LCW Has Higher Rates of Nerve Injury and Conversion to Total Knee

Luke V Tollefson  1 , Dustin Lee  1 , Taidhgin Keel  1 , Christopher M LaPrade  1 , Robert F LaPrade  2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Medial Opening Wedge Versus Lateral Closing Wedge (LCW) High Tibial Osteotomies for Knee Medial Compartment Osteoarthritis Show Similar Outcomes and Survivorship, While Medial Opening Wedge Has Higher Rates of Tibial Fracture and LCW Has Higher Rates of Nerve Injury and Conversion to Total Knee

Luke V Tollefson et al. Arthroscopy. 2025 Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between medial opening wedge (MOW) and lateral closing wedge (LCW) high tibial osteotomies (HTOs) in the setting of medial compartment osteoarthritis with genu varus alignment.

Methods: This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Studies that reported on MOW or LCW HTOs in the setting of medial compartment osteoarthritis were included. Analysis was performed based on radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications.

Results: A total of 40 studies were included. Hip-knee-ankle angles and PROs, including Lysholm and visual analog scale, showed significant improvements postoperatively for both MOW and LCW HTO for all included studies. For the studies that reported on it, posterior tibial slope (PTS) was significantly increased in 4 of the 9 MOW studies and significantly decreased in 8 of the 9 LCW studies. Patellar height was significantly decreased in 4 of the 5 MOW studies, while none of the 4 LCW studies reported any changes. Three comparison studies reported a higher conversion to total knee arthroplasty in the LCW cohort; otherwise, survivorship at 10 years was comparable between studies. The MOW cohort had higher rates of tibial fractures, while the LCW cohort had higher rates of nerve injuries.

Conclusions: This systematic review found comparable hip-knee-ankle angle correction and PROs between patients undergoing MOW or LCW HTOs to treat medial compartment osteoarthritis. Survivorship at 10 years was comparable between MOW and LCW HTOs; however, some MOW and LCW HTO comparison studies reported higher conversion to total knee arthroplasty for LCW HTO. Medial opening wedge HTO typically results in an increased PTS, decreased patellar height, and tibial fractures, while LCW HTO typically results in decreased PTS, no change in patellar height, and common peroneal nerve injuries.

Level of evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: C.M.L. has received speaking and lecture fees from Foundation Medical and Evolution Surgical; has a family member who is a consultant or advisor for Ossur Americas, Smith & Nephew, Linvatec Europe, and Responsive Arthroscopy; and has a family member receives funding grants from Ossur Americas, Smith & Nephew, Arthroscopy Association of North America, and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. R.F.L. is a consultant or advisor for Ossur Americas, Smith & Nephew, Linvatec Europe, and Responsive Arthroscopy and receives funding grants from Ossur Americas, Smith & Nephew, Arthroscopy Association of North America, and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. All other authors (L.V.T., D.L., T.K.) declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

MeSH terms