Search

Among various patient risk factors affecting survival after high tibial osteotomy (HTO), the ideal age limit for HTO is unclear. This study was performed to evaluate the effect of age on survival rate and complications after HTO for medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis. Among of 61,145 HTO patients from Korean National Health Insurance database, 41,112 patients underwent the procedure before the age of 60 years (Group A), 13,895 patients between the age of 60 and 65 years (Group B), and 6138 patients after the age of 65 years (Group C). We compared the survival rate in person-years among the three groups from the date of primary surgery until subsequent total knee arthroplasty. Perioperative complications were also recorded. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) were calculated using the multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model, adjusting for the potential confounders: age, sex, type of medical insurance, region of residence, hospital type, comorbidities, and Charlson comorbidity index score. The total number of HTO increased 6.5-fold, especially in patients aged > 65 years (by 8.2-fold) from 2008 to 2018. The overall revision rate was 4.2% in Group A, 6.4% in Group B, and 7.3% in Group C. The 5- and 10-year revision rate was significantly lower in Group A (p < 0.001), but no difference between Groups B and C. After adjusting for potential confounders, multivariable regression analysis revealed that revision rate was significantly lower in Group A than Group B (HR: 0.57; p < 0.0001), but no difference between Groups B and C. The incidence of complications was also significantly lower in Group A than in other groups. The inferior survival rate and more perioperative complications after HTO was found in old patients (aged ≥ 60 years) than in young patients. Therefore, the patient age is one of the predicting factors for a high risk of failure after HTO., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: No consensus has been reached on the advantages of double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) over the single-bundle (SB) technique, particularly with respect to the prevention of osteoarthritis (OA) after ACLR., Purpose: To evaluate whether DB ACLR has any advantages in the prevention of OA or provides better stability and function after ACLR compared with the SB technique., Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2., Methods: A total of 130 patients with an ACL injury in one knee were prospectively randomized into a DB group (n = 65) or an SB group (n = 65). For the radiologic evaluation, we determined the degree of OA based on the Kellgren-Lawrence grade before the operation and at the time of the final follow-up and determined the number of patients with progression of OA more than one grade from pre- to postoperation. We evaluated the stability results using the Lachman and pivot-shift tests and stress radiography. We also compared the functional outcomes based on the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scale., Results: Six patients (4 in the DB group and 2 in the SB group) suffered graft failure during the follow-up and had ACL revision surgery (P = .06). A total of 112 patients were observed for a minimum of 4 years (DB group, n = 52; SB group, n = 60). Five patients (9.6%) in the DB group and 6 patients (10%) in the SB group had more advanced OA at the final follow-up (P = .75). All patients recovered full range of motion within 6 months from surgery. Stability results of the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, and the radiographic stability test failed to reveal any significant intergroup differences (P = .37, .27, and .67, respectively). In the pivot-shift result, the DB group had 4 patients with grade 2 and the SB group had 3 patients with grade 2 (P = .27). Clinical outcomes, including Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores, were similar in the 2 groups. Statistical significance was achieved only for the IKDC subjective scale (78.2 in DB group vs 73.1 in SB group; P = .03)., Conclusion: The DB technique, compared with SB, was not more effective in preventing OA and did not have a more favorable failure rate. Although the DB ACLR technique produced a better IKDC subjective scale result than did the SB ACLR technique, the 2 modalities were similar in terms of clinical outcomes and stability after a minimum 4 years of follow-up.

Background: Recently, high-flexion PCL-retaining (CR) and -substituting (PS) knee prostheses were designed to allow greater and safer flexion after TKA. However, the advantages of high-flexion TKA over standard design have been debated in terms of early maximal flexion. A recent study reported a high incidence of early loosening of the femoral component related to the deep flexion provided by high-flexion PS TKA., Questions/purposes: We determined whether high-flexion fixed bearing CR and PS prostheses would provide (1) a better flexion, (2) a better function, and (3) a higher incidence of radiographic loosening than TKA performed using standard fixed bearing CR prostheses in Asian patients., Methods: From a total of 182 patients with primary unilateral TKA, we retrospectively reviewed 137 TKAs: 47 with high-flexion CR, 42 with high-flexion PS, and 48 with standard CR designs. ROM, Knee Society scores, and WOMAC scores were evaluated and compared among the three groups. Radiographically, we assessed radiolucent zones and component loosening. Minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 6.2 years; range, 5-8 years)., Results: We found no differences among the three groups in mean maximal flexion (high-flexion CR: 135°; high-flexion PS: 134°; standard CR: 136°), Knee Society scores, and WOMAC scores at last followup. Also, there were no differences among the three groups in terms of radiolucent lines around the prosthesis. No patient in any group had loosening of the femoral component., Conclusions: The high-flexion CR or PS design had no advantages over the standard CR design with respect to ROM, clinical scores, and radiolucent lines around the femoral or tibial component after 5 years' followup.