Accuracy of the correction achieved after a valgus high tibial osteotomy: Comparison of the Hernigou table and navigation

Abstract

IntroductionThe outcome of a medial opening wedge valgus high tibial osteotomy indicated for the treatment of isolated medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis depends mainly on the accuracy of the correction of the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA) and the mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA). Most authors aim for a desired correction target between 2° and 4° of valgus. Several planning and surgical techniques have been described to achieve this target value that is specific to each surgeon. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the correction achieved using either the Hernigou table (HT) planning method or a computer-assisted navigation system (CAS). It was hypothesized that no difference would be found between these 2 techniques. Materials and MethodsThis retrospective single-center study involved 43 knees: 21 in the HT group and 22 in the CAS group. Two surgeons (ME, JYJ), who were experts in 1 of the 2 planning methods performed these procedures, with a single surgeon assigned to each group. The correction was noted in the operative report and was considered to be the desired correction target. The surgical correction was calculated by comparing preoperative and immediate postoperative mMPTA measurements. The surgical accuracy, where a value close to 0 represented optimal accuracy, was defined as the absolute value of the difference between the correction target set by the surgeon and the surgical correction achieved. The median accuracy between the 2 groups was compared by a Mann-Whitney U test (significance level at 5%). The number of patients deviating from the target by>3° was analyzed with a Fisher exact test (significance level at 5%). Pre- and postoperative comparisons of the HKAA measurements could not be used because the measurement was not performed postoperatively for the CAS group. ResultsThe median surgical accuracy on the mMPTA was 1.4° (0–4.1) for the HT group versus 1.9° (0.2–6.7) for the CAS group (p=0.85). Sixteen procedures (76%) were performed with an accuracy of<3° in the HT group versus 15 in the CAS group (68%) (p=0.73). Discussion-ConclusionThe working hypothesis was confirmed: no differences were found between the HT and CAS groups regarding the surgical accuracy in achieving the corrections set in this series. We therefore demonstrated that HT was a highly accessible, simple and reliable technique for achieving the planned target. It can be used widely. Level of EvidenceIII; comparative retrospective series.