Up to date diagnosis and treatment of massive irreparable cuff tears: Results of the survey of the U45 ESSKA Committee.

PURPOSE: Irreparable rotator cuff tears are disabling and can severely affect daily life activities, especially when young and active patients are involved. The definition is still debated, and they can have several clinical presentations. The treatment depends on the clinical presentation and the patient's age. METHODS: The survey was developed by the ESSKA U45 Committee and was uploaded on the ESSKA website. Fifty-seven questionnaires were returned. Several aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of massive irreparable cuff tears were investigated. Moreover, treatment options for specific clinical scenarios were given for posterior-superior and anterior-superior cuff tears in young and old patients. RESULTS: Fatty degeneration of the muscles was the most common criterion to define an irreparable tear (59.7%). In young patients with external rotation with the arm at side lag, partial repair of the cuff was the most common option (41.8%); in case of external rotation with the arm at side + external rotation at 90° of abduction lag without pseudoparalysis, the most common option was partial repair of the cuff + latissimus dorsi or lower trapezius transfer (39.3%), and in case of external rotation with the arm at side + external rotation at 90° of abduction lag with pseudoparalysis, partial repair of the cuff + latissimus dorsi or lower trapezius transfer was still the most common option (25.5%). The same scenarios in old patients yielded the following results: reverse prosthesis (49.1%), reverse prosthesis (44.6%) and reverse prosthesis ± latissimus dorsi or lower trapezius transfer (44.6%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present survey clearly confirms that biological options (partial cuff repairs and tendon transfers) are the reference in the case of young patients with deficient cuffs (both posterior and anterior). Reverse shoulder prosthesis is the most common treatment option in old patients in all clinical scenarios. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

The tipping point in medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy relates to the shape of the proximal tibia more than to lower limb alignment correction.

PURPOSE: The tipping point (TP) of the knee joint is the centre of rotation of the joint in the coronal plane. This study aimed to define the TP in medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO). METHODS: Data from 154 consecutive patients with varus knee malalignment, who underwent MOWHTO between 2017 and 2021, was retrospectively reviewed. The degree of preoperative osteoarthritis (OA), using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grading system, was recorded. Long-leg standing radiographs were used to record the alignment parameters, including the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), the mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), the joint line convergence angle (JLCA) and the joint line obliquity (JLO) angle. Postoperative Tegner activity scores, Western Ontario and McMaster University Scores and patients' satisfaction were recorded. To define the TP, the relationship of all variables to Δ JLCA (absolute difference between preoperative to postoperative JLCA values) was analysed. Linear regression was employed for Δ JLCA to preoperative JLCA and postoperative and Δ MPTA (absolute difference between preoperative and postoperative values). K-means clustering was used to partition observations into clusters, in which each observation belongs to the cluster with the nearest mean serving as a prototype of the cluster, and analysed if there was any specific threshold influencing Δ JLCA. After defining the TP, further subanalysis of the TP based on the preoperative KL OA grade and analysis of variance of this TP to the KL OA grade was performed. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (77.9% males and 22.1% females) were included. The mean age was 48.2 ± 11 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 4 kg/m2. Preoperatively, 26 (16.9%) patients had KL grade IV OA. The mean preoperative and postoperative JLCA and the significance of their relation to Δ JLCA were 2.6° ± 1.8° (p < 0.0001) and 1.9° ± 1.8° (p = 0.6), respectively. The mean Δ JLCA was 1.4° ± 1.5°. The mean pre- and postoperative MPTA and the significance of their relation to Δ JLCA were 84.6 ± 2.2 (p = 0.005) and 91.8 ± 2.5 (p < 0.0007), respectively. The mean Δ MPTA was 7.2 ± 2.3 (p = 0.3). The mean preoperative and postoperative HKA and the significance of their relation to Δ JLCA were 174.6 ± 2.5 (p = 0.2) and 181.9 ± 2.4 (p = 0.7), respectively. The overall linear regression for Δ JLCA was statistically significant for preoperative JLCA (R2 = 0.3, p < 0.0001) and postoperative MPTA (R2 = 0.09, p = 0.0001) and statistically insignificant for Δ MPTA (R2 = 0.01, p = 0.2) and postoperative HKA (R2 = 0.04, p = 0.7). MPTA > 91.5° was the optimal threshold dividing this series data set between substantial and nonsignificant Δ JLCA. CONCLUSION: In this study, the main predictive factors for intra-articular correction (Δ JLCA) after MOWHTO were the preoperative value of JLCA and the postoperative value of MPTA. A value of 92° for postoperative MPTA is potentially the optimal threshold to predict intra-articular correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

CPAK classification detect the real knee joint apex position in less than half of the knees.

PURPOSE: Accurate assessment of the knee joint line is essential for surgeries involving the knee. The knee joint line obliquity (KJLO) is a radiological measurement that evaluates the position of the knee joint relative to the ground and is frequently used in preoperative planning and clinical follow-up. On the other hand, coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classifications assesses the joint line as the summation of the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA). The purpose of this study is to determine the concordance of these two measurement techniques. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated the long-leg standing radiographs (LSRs) of 164 healthy knees. The extremity KJLO and CPAK classification JLO were measured twice by two observers at 8-week intervals. The knee joint line apex positions (proximal, neutral and distal) of the two measurement techniques are compared (concordance or discordant). The intraobserver and interobserver reliability were examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Possible causes of the discordant were evaluated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: CPAK classification detected the KJLO apex position in 70 extremities (42.7%) only. Subgroups CPAK JLO detected 13.6% of the proximal apex, 20.4% of the neutral, and 90.7% of the distal apex (p < 0.01). Upon multivariate logistic regression analysis, the variable KJLO apex position (proximal, neutral vs. distal, odds ratio (OR) = 10.291, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.225-25.656, and (p < 0.01) was determined as a risk factor for discordant. CONCLUSION: The CPAK JLO measurement technique can be misleading in defining the KJLO apex position and the concordance between them is less than 50%. It has a high tendency to misleadingly predict proximal and neutral apex positions, which can potentially have negative implications for assessing the joint line. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

'One millimetre equals one degree' is a major source of inaccuracy in planning osteotomies around the knee for metaphyseal deformities compared to the digital planning.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of virtually performed osteotomies around the knee. The comparison was made between the Miniaci method (method 1), considered the gold standard planning, with the widely held dogma that one degree of correction required equates to one millimetre of opening/closing (method 2). METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2018 and September 2022 in patients aged at least 15 years with metaphyseal knee deformity. Osteotomy planning was performed in methods 1 and 2 utilising calibrated long-leg alignment X-rays in the frontal plane. In both methods, the desired correction was defined by the Fujisawa point. The error % in measurement (ratio method 1/method 2) and the difference in millimetres (method 1 - method 2) between the two methods were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 107 osteotomies with 27 (25.2%) distal femoral osteotomies, 54 (50.5%) proximal tibial osteotomies and 26 (24.3%) double-level osteotomies were performed virtually with a mean hip-knee-ankle angle of 176.4 ± 6.6. In distal femur osteotomy, the mean error % between methods 1 and 2 was 38.9 ± 16.7% and 22.4 ± 16.8% for the opening and closing groups, respectively. In proximal tibial osteotomies, the mean error % was 22.7 ± 15.6% and 9 ± 10.8% for the opening and closing groups, respectively. In double-level osteotomy, the mean error % of femur-based corrections was 34.9 ± 19% and 19.5 ± 21% for the opening and closing groups, respectively, and the mean error of the tibial-based corrections was 26.4 ± 12.1% for the opening group and 10.8 ± 10% for the closing group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Planning one millimeter per degree of desired correction for osteotomies around the knee in metaphyseal deformities is a major source of error when compared with digital planning using the Miniaci method. This was seen most frequently with osteotomies of the distal femur and all opening wedge osteotomies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅲ, retrospective cross-sectional study.

Deformity in valgus knee malalignment is not only in the femur but also in tibia or both, based on demographic and morphological analysis before and after knee osteotomies.

PURPOSE: This study aims to identify the demographic and morphological features of valgus knee deformity with unilateral osteoarthritic knee in the coronal plane. A secondary aim was to identify the distinct phenotypes of valgus knees in Hirschmann's phenotype and the coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classifications before and after a knee osteotomy (KO). METHODS: A total of 107 patients (57 female and 50 male) with a mean age of 42.4 ± 17.2 years, who underwent varisation osteotomy for symptomatic unilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA) and constitutional valgus deformity, were enrolled in the study, and the mean follow-up period was 29.1 ± 7.3 months. The included cases comprised 60 cases of distal femoral osteotomy, 10 cases of double-level osteotomy and 33 cases of high tibial osteotomy. All patients underwent preoperative and postoperative clinical, functional and radiological evaluations, analysed by analysis of variance tests. RESULTS: An analysis of the location of the valgus deformities demonstrated that 56 cases (52.3%) were femoral based, 18 cases (16.8%) were both femoral and tibial based and 33 cases (30.9%) were tibial based. Twelve preosteotomy cases (11.2%) and 38 postosteotomy cases (35.5%) matched the most common eight Hirschmann's phenotypes, phenotyping the coronal lower limb alignment based on the native alignment in young patients without OA. Four (3.7%) preosteotomy cases and 89 postosteotomy cases (83.1%) matched the most common three CPAK phenotypes (Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅴ) based on constitutional alignment and joint line obliquity in healthy and osteoarthritic knees. CONCLUSION: In valgus knee malalignment, the location of the deformity is not only solely femoral-based but also solely tibial-based or combined femoral and tibial-based. An individualised osteotomy approach would be recommended to achieve careful preoperative planning that considers the location of the deformity and the resultant joint line. Hirschmann's and CPAK classification would not be relevant when KO is considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅳ, retrospective case-control study.

CPAK classification cannot be used to determine segmental coronal extra-articular knee deformity.

PURPOSE: While the coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification serves as a useful guide in personalising total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the extent of its correlation with segmental coronal extra-articular knee deformities remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate the potential correlation between CPAK matrix groups and segmental coronal extra-articular deformities in prearthritic knees, shedding light on the relationship between these two factors that seems to be both essential to perform personalised TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiological assessment of 1240 nonarthritic knees was performed by evaluating lower limb measurements following the protocol established by Paley et al. Subsequently, all knees were classified into their respective CPAK matrix groups. In our quest to discern any correlation between the CPAK matrix groups and the presence of segmental coronal extra-articular knee deformities, nine potential coronal extra-articular deformity phenotype (CEDP) groupswere identified based on medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA). Neutral values for MPTA and mLDFA were set at 90.0° ± 3.0° and then at 87.0° ± 2.0°. Each CPAK matrix group underwent detailed coronal morphology analysis and then, segmental coronal extra-articular deformities were assessed by comparing them with the CEDP groups. RESULTS: The study revealed a mean hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) of 178.6° ± 4.4°, mLDFA of 86.9° ± 2.5°, MPTA of 85.4° ± 2.4°, arithmetic HKA of -1.4° ± 3.2° and joint line obliquity of 172.5° ± 3.7°. The varus CPAK groups (I/IV/VII) included 435 patients, the neutral groups (II/V/VIII) comprised 630 patients and the valgus groups (III/VI/IX) had 175 patients. Notably, CPAK matrix groups were not distinctly associated with specific coronal extra-articular deformity phenotype (CEDP) groups. Particularly among the most common CPAK matrix groups (I/II/III/IV/V), there was a significant variation in segmental coronal extra-articular deformity patterns. Moreover, when neutral MPTA/mLDFA values were set at 87.0° ± 2.0°, the CPAK matrix groups exhibited even greater variability in coronal extra-articular deformities. CONCLUSION: The CPAK matrix groups do not exhibit a direct correlation with a specific extra-articular deformity pattern (CEDP), thus rendering them unsuitable for determining segmental coronal extra-articular knee deformities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective diagnostic study.

Information videos posted on Instagram by orthopaedics and sports traumatology surgeons mostly explain surgical technique, and the least mentioned topics are injury prevention and complications.

PURPOSE: Social media has become the new information acquisition platform for all content producers. In the current literature, there are no studies examining the content quality and the strengths and weaknesses of videos on Instagram that explain anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, which is the most discussed topic of sports surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality, strengths and weaknesses of information pertaining to ACL surgery that is disseminated on Instagram. METHOD: An Instagram search was conducted from 30 May 2023 to 30 January 2024. The search encompassed six languages (English, Spanish, German, French, Italian and Turkish) and was performed by six different observers. The investigation focused on eight subheadings derived from current literature on the ACL. These subheadings were addressed in Instagram videos, covering ACL biology or biomechanics, injury mechanism, injury prevention, injury evaluation, surgical technique, injury or surgery complications, injury rehabilitation process and return to sport or work. RESULT: The content was assessed of 127 videos from 127 Instagram accounts, spanning six different languages. Across the review of eight subheadings, the average number covered for the entire group was 3 (range, 0-8). Further analysis revealed that surgical technique was the most frequently mentioned subheading for the whole group (68.5%), followed by injury evaluation (54.3%). Prevention (10.2%) and complications (19.6%) were the least mentioned subheadings. The number of followers showed a correlation with video content quality. CONCLUSION: Although the video quality scores were found to be moderate, the content often focused on surgery and evaluation subheadings. The prevalence of incomplete information underscores the importance of developing strategies to ensure more comprehensive and accurate dissemination of medical knowledge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Osteotomy around the painful degenerative varus knee has broader indications than conventionally described but must follow a strict planning process: ESSKA Formal Consensus Part I.

PURPOSE: The European consensus was designed with the objective of combining science and expertise to produce recommendations that would educate and provide guidance in the treatment of the painful degenerative varus knee. Part I focused on indications and planning. METHODS: Ninety-four orthopaedic surgeons from 24 European countries were involved in the consensus, which focused on the most common indications for osteotomy around the knee. The consensus was performed according to an established ESSKA methodology. The questions and recommendations made were initially designed by the consensus steering group. And 'best possible' answers were provided based upon the scientific evidence available and the experience of the experts. The statements produced were further evaluated by ratings and peer review groups before a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: There is no reliable evidence to exclude patients based on age, gender or body weight. An individualised approach is advised; however, cessation of smoking is recommended. The same applies to lesser degrees of patellofemoral and lateral compartment arthritis, which may be accepted in certain situations. Good-quality limb alignment and knee radiographs are a mandatory requirement for planning of osteotomies, and Paley's angles and normal ranges are recommended when undertaking deformity analysis. Emphasis is placed upon the correct level at which correction of varus malalignment is performed, which may involve double-level osteotomy. This includes recognition of the importance of individual bone morphology and the maintenance of a physiologically appropriate joint line orientation. CONCLUSION: The indications of knee osteotomies for painful degenerative varus knees are broad. Part I of the consensus highlights the versatility of the procedure to address multiple scenarios with bespoke planning for each case. Deformity analysis is mandatory for defining the bone morphology, the site of the deformity and planning the correct procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, consensus.

Surgical strategy and complication management of osteotomy around the painful degenerative varus knee: ESSKA Formal Consensus Part II.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the European consensus was to provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with a painful degenerative varus knee using a joint preservation approach. Part II focused on surgery, rehabilitation and complications after tibial or femoral correction osteotomy. METHODS: Ninety-four orthopaedic surgeons from 24 countries across Europe were involved in the consensus, which focused on osteotomies around the knee. The consensus was performed according to the European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy consensus methodology. The steering group designed the questions and prepared the statements based on the experience of the experts and the evidence of the literature. The statements were evaluated by the ratings of the peer-review groups before a final consensus was released. RESULTS: The ideal hinge position for medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOW HTO) should be at the upper level of the proximal tibiofibular joint, and for lateral closing wedge distal femoral osteotomy (LCW DFO) just above the medial femoral condyle. Hinge protection is not mandatory. Biplanar osteotomy cuts provide more stability and quicker bony union for both MOW HTO and LCW DFO and are especially recommended for the latter. Osteotomy gap filling is not mandatory, unless structural augmentation for stability is required. Patient-specific instrumentation should be reserved for complex cases by experienced hands. Early full weight-bearing can be adopted after osteotomy, regardless of the technique. However, extra caution should be exercised in DFO patients. Osteotomy patients should return to sports within 6 months. CONCLUSION: Clear recommendations for surgical strategy, rehabilitation and complications of knee osteotomies for the painful degenerative varus knee were demonstrated. In Part 2 of the consensus, high levels of agreement were reached by experts throughout Europe, under variable working conditions. Where science is limited, the collated expertise of the collaborators aimed at providing guidance for orthopaedic surgeons developing an interest in the field and highlighting areas for potential future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, consensus.

Outcomes of Short and Long Tibial Stems for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty in a Population of Obese Patients at Two-Year Follow-Up: A Clinical and Biomechanical Study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity can be a source of higher failure rates and inferior clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes, failure rates, and stress distributions of TKA in obese patients using a short, long, or no tibial stem. METHODS: A matching process based on the type of stem used and the age allowed included 180 patients who had a body mass index (BMI) > 30 and underwent a TKA between January 2010 and December 2019, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. They were classified as moderately obese (MO: 30 < BMI < 35, N = 90) and severely obese (SO: BMI > 35, N = 90). For each, 3 subgroups were defined: thirty patients received a 30 mm short stem (SS), thirty received a 100 mm long stem (LS), and thirty received no stem (NS). Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively using the Knee Society Score (KSS). A finite element model was developed to evaluate the biomechanical effects of the tibial stem on stress distribution in the subchondral bone based on BMI. RESULTS: The SS patients had significantly higher postoperative KSS knee score [MO: 88.9 (SS) versus 79 (LS) versus 80.6 (NS); SO: 84.5 versus 72.4 versus 78.2] (P < .0001) and function score [MO: 90.4 (SS) versus 78.4 (LS) versus 68.5 (NS); SO: 85.5 versus 73 versus 61.8] (P < .0001) compared to LS and NS patients. The biomechanical study demonstrated a BMI-dependent increase in stress in the subchondral bone in contact with the tibial components. These stresses were mainly distributed at the tibial cut for NS and along the stem for SS and LS. CONCLUSIONS: A short, cemented tibial stem offers better functional outcomes without increasing failure rates compared to a longer stem during primary TKA in a population of obese patients at two-year follow-up. A short tibial stem does not lead to increased stress compared to an LS, at least for certain BMI categories.

The unintentional effect of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on extraarticular deformity and of high tibial osteotomy on intraarticular deformity for the treatment of anteromedial osteoarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) and High Tibial Osteotomy (HTO) are two valid options in the treatment of Anteromedial Osteoarthritis (AMOA) of the knee with UKA being mainly performed in cases of Intraarticular deformity (IA) and HTO in cases of Extraarticular deformity (EA). The exact unintentional effect of UKA on EA deformity and HTO on IA deformity is still not well understood. The aim of this study was to assess this unintentional effect of UKA on EA and HTO on IA deformities respectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This a single-center retrospective study in which 50 patients who underwent UKA and 50 patients who underwent medial opening wedge HTO (MWOHTO) for the treatment of AMOA were included. Overall, 35 males and 15 females underwent HTO with a mean age of 44.3 ± 11.2 years while the mean age of the UKA group was 71.8 ± 7.9 years in 23 males and 27 females. The radiological effect of UKA and HTO on each of the following angles: Hip-Knee-Ankle angle (HKA), Medial Proximal Tibial Angle (MPTA), mechanical Lateral Distal Femoral Angle (mLDFA) and Joint Line Convergence Angle (JLCA) on long film radiographs both pre- and postoperatively was measured. The postoperative values were compared to the preoperative values to detect the expected and unintended effects of each technique on IA and EA deformities. RESULTS: In the HTO group, the MPTA has changed significantly as expected from 83.1 ± 4.5 preoperatively to 88.9 ± 3.9 postoperatively (p value < 0.001) correcting the existing preoperative EA varus without overcorrection. Similarly in the UKA group, the JLCA has also changed significantly as expected to correct the IA varus from 3.8 ± 1.7 preoperatively to 0.9 ± 1 postoperatively (p value < 0.001). On the other hand, the JLCA was unintentionally changed in the HTO group from 2.6 ± 2.1 preoperatively to 1.6 ± 2.4 postoperatively (p value = 0.03) partly correcting the IA varus deformity. Similarly, the MPTA showed a significant change that occurred inadvertently in the UKA group from 84.8 ± 2.1 to 86.3 ± 1.6 postoperatively (p value < 0.001). This unintentional increase in the MPTA also partly corrected the preexisting EA varus deformity. The mLDFA did not show a significant change neither in the HTO group (p value = 0.96) nor in the UKA group (p value = 0.94). CONCLUSION: In addition to intraarticular varus correction, UKA can partly correct the extraarticular varus deformity in AMOA even when resurfacing is exclusively attempted. Additionally, intraarticular deformity can be also partially managed by HTO along with the extraarticular varus correction even without performing overcorrection.

Does Matching Femoral Size and Shape Improve Bone Fit and Patient-reported Outcomes in TKA? A Matched Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Some researchers have suggested that achieving good component coverage over the host bone during TKA (while avoiding implant overhang) may help achieve durable implant fixation and may be associated with better outcomes scores. However, the evidence about this is limited and contradictory. Contemporary morphometric TKA includes a wide array of components with various shapes and sizes, based on large anatomic databases and specific software that simulates bone cuts. Morphometric tibial components have shown improved bone coverage and better clinical outcomes than standardized implants, but the role of morphometric femoral components in bone coverage has not been studied precisely. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a retrospective, controlled study that used patient matching, we asked: (1) Does the use of a contemporary morphometric component with more available sizes provide better femoral component fit and bone coverage than an earlier design with fewer sizes? (2) Are component fit and the presence of component overhang or underhang associated with different Knee Society Score (KSS) or Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for Joint Replacement? METHODS: From 2012 to 2013, we performed 403 TKAs according to the following criteria: TKA performed for primary tricompartmental arthritis of the knee; varus, valgus, and flexion deformity less than 15°; and age between 18 and 85 years on the day of surgery. Among these 403 TKAs, 237 were performed using a morphometric implant and 166 with the earlier nonmorphometric implant. At 2 years of follow-up, 3% of patients in the morphometric group and 5% in the nonmorphometric group were lost to follow-up. Based on age, BMI, gender, and preoperative KSS and KOOS, two groups of 30 patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio from this longitudinally maintained database. Clinical outcomes were measured preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years in both groups, using the KSS and KOOS. We evaluated postoperative CT images for each patient to analyze femoral implant rotation, bone coverage, and overhang and underhang status. RESULTS: The overhang status was similar between the two groups (23% had an overhang component in the morphometric knee group and 27% had an overhang component in the nonmorphometric knee group), and overhang was most frequently found in the lateral distal zone and medial anterior chamfer. Better cortical bone coverage was found in the morphometric knee group, with a thinner bone margin between the component edge and cortical border (morphometric group: 3 mm versus nonmorphometric knee group: 5 mm; p = 0.01). In general, there were few between-group differences in terms of patient-reported outcomes; of the seven metrics we analyzed, only the KSS favored the morphometric knee implant by a margin larger than the minimum clinically important difference (KSS mean difference: 21 points for the morphometric knee group; p < 0.05). Overhang of the femoral component of > 2 mm was associated with poorer KOOS, but not KSS, whereas a thinner bone margin had a beneficial impact on pain and global clinical scores (KOOS and KSS: p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of a morphometric femoral component design showed slightly improved bone fit and pain score according to the KSS at midterm follow-up compared with earlier implants with fewer sizes. Overhang > 2 mm was associated with worse KOOS. The tendency toward better outcomes in morphometric implants warrants longer-term evaluation before any definite conclusions about the association between bone fit and clinical results can be drawn.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

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

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.

Double-level knee osteotomy accurately corrects lower limb deformity and provides satisfactory functional outcomes in bifocal (femur and tibia) valgus malaligned knees.

PURPOSE: Double-level knee osteotomy (DLO) is a challenging procedure that requires precision in preoperative planning and intraoperative execution to achieve the desired correction. It is indicated in cases of severe varus or valgus deformities where a single-level osteotomy would yield significantly tilted joint line obliquity (JLO). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of DLO in achieving accurate correction without compromising JLO, using patient-specific cutting guides (PSCGs), in cases of bifocal valgus maligned knees. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for a total of 26 patients, who underwent DLO by PSCGs for valgus malaligned knees, between 2015 and 2020. Post-operative alignment was evaluated and the delta for different lower limb0.05, not statistically significant (ns)). All KOOS subs alignment parameters was calculated; the hip-knee-ankle angle (ΔHKA), medial proximal tibial angle (ΔMPTA), and lateral distal femoral angle (ΔLDFA). At the two-year follow-up, changes in the KOOS sub-scores, UCLA scores, lower limb discrepancy (LLD), and mean time to return to work and sport were recorded. All intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. The Mann-Whitney U test with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to evaluate the differences between two variables; one-way ANOVA between more than two variables and the paired Student's t-test was used to estimate the evolution of functional outcomes. RESULTS: The postoperative mean ΔHKA was 0.9 ± 0.9°, the mean ΔMPTA was 0.7 ± 0.7°, and the mean ΔLDFA was 0.7 ± 0.8° (all values with p > 0.05, not statistically significant (ns)). All KOOS subscore's mean values were improved to an extent two-fold superior to the reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (all with p < 0.0001). There was a significant increase in the UCLA score at the final follow-up (5.4 ± 1.5 preoperatively versus 7.7 ± 1.4, p < 0.01). The mean time to return to sport and work was 4.7 ± 1.1 and 4.3 ± 2.1 months, respectively. There was an improvement in Lower-limb discrepancy preoperative (LLD = 1.3 ± 2 cm) to postoperative measures (LLD = 0.3 ± 0.4 cm), ns. Complications were 2 femoral hinge fractures, 2 deep vein thromboses, 1 delayed tibial healing, and 1 hardware removal for hamstring irritation syndrome. CONCLUSION: DLO is effective and safe in achieving accurate correction in bifocal valgus malaligned knees with maintained lower limb length and low complication rate with no compromise of JLO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

A significant rate of tibial overcorrection with an increased JLO occurred after isolated high tibial osteotomy without considering international consensus.

PURPOSE: The recent ESSKA consensus recommendations defined indications and outlined parameters for osteotomies around a degenerative varus knee. The consensus collated these guidelines based on the published literature available to answer commonly asked questions including the importance of identifying the site and degree of the lower limb deformity. In the consensus, the authors suggest that a knee joint line obliquity (JLO) greater than 5° or a planned medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) > 94° preferentially indicates a double level osteotomy (DLO) compared to an isolated opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO). This study aimed to analyze the corrections performed on a cohort of isolated opening wedge high tibial osteotomies (OWHTOs) prior to the recent ESSKA recommendations, with a focus on the impact of knee joint line obliquity (JLO) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) on the choice of osteotomy procedure. METHODS: This monocentric, retrospective study included 129 patients undergoing medial OWHTO for symptomatic isolated medial knee osteoarthritis (Ahlbäck grade I or II) and a global varus malalignment (hip-knee-ankle angle ≤ 177°). An automated software trained to automatically detect lower limb deformity was implemented using patients preoperative long leg alignment X-rays to identify suitability for an isolated HTO in knee varus deformity. Based on the ESSKA recommendations, the site of the osteotomy was identified as well as the degree of correction required. The ESSKA consensus considers avoiding an isolated high tibial osteotomy if the planned resultant knee joint line orientation exceeds 5 ̊ or MPTA exceeds 94°. A preoperative abnormal MPTA was defined by a value lower than 85° and a preoperative abnormal LDFA by a value greater than 90°. The cases of DLO or DFO suggested by the software and the number of extra-tibial anomalies were collected. Multiple linear regression models were developed to establish a relationship between preoperative values and the risk of being outside of ESSKA recommendations postoperatively. RESULTS: Based on ESSKA recommendations and on threshold values considered abnormal, the software suggested a DLO in 17.8% (n = 23/129) of cases, a distal femoral osteotomy in 27.9% (n = 36/129) of cases and advised against an osteotomy procedure in 24% (n = 31/129) of cases. The software detected a femoral anomaly in 34.9% (n = 45/129) of cases and an JLCA > 6° in 9.3% (n = 12/129). Postoperatively, the MPTA exceeds 94° in 41.1% (n = 53/129) and the JLO exceeds 5° in 29.4% (n = 38/129). On multivariate analysis, a high preoperative MPTA was associated with higher risk of postoperative MPTA > 94° (R2 = 0.36; p < 0.001). Similarly, the probability of the software advising a DLO or DFO was associated with the presence of an "normal" preoperative MPTA (R2 = 0.42; p < 0.001) or an abnormal preoperative LDFA (R2 = 0.48; p < 0.001) or a planned JLO > 5° (R2 = 0.27; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of patients who underwent an isolated OWHTO prior to the ESSKA guidelines, demonstrated a significant rate of post-operative tibial overcorrection and a resultant increased JLO. Pre-operative planning that considers the ESSKA guidelines, allows for better identification of those patients requiring a DFO or DLO and avoidance of resultant post-operative deformities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, case-series.

Assessment of return to sport and functional outcomes following distal femoral, double level and high tibial osteotomies for active patients with symptomatic varus malalignment.

PURPOSE: This study indicated the outcomes of three surgical techniques for the treatment of symptomatic unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (UKOA) with varus malalignment in younger, active patients: distal femoral osteotomy (DFO), double-level osteotomy (DLO) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO). The outcomes measured included the return to sport, sport activity and functional scores. METHODS: A total of 103 patients (19 DFO, 43 DLO, 41 HTO) were enrolled in the study and were divided into three groups based on their oriented deformity, each undergoing one of the three surgical techniques. All patients underwent pre- and post-operative evaluations including X-rays, physical exams and functional assessments. RESULTS: All three surgical techniques were effective in treating UKOA with constitutional malalignment. The average time to return to sport was similar among the three groups (DFO: 6.4 ± 0.3 [5.8-7] months, DLO: 4.9 ± 0.2 [4.5-5.3] months, HTO: 5.6 ± 0.2 [5.2-6] months). The sport activity and functional scores improved significantly for all three groups, with no significant differences observed among the groups. CONCLUSION: Various knee osteotomy procedures, DFO, DLO, and HTO, result in high RTS rates and quick RTS times with satisfactory functional scores. Despite pre- to post-operative improvements in sport activities following DFO and DLO, pre-symptom levels were not reached following all evaluated procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case-control study, Level III.

The joint line convergence angle (JLCA) correlates with intra-articular arthritis.

PURPOSE: Knees with unicompartmental varus osteoarthritis (OA) usually display a combination of tibiofemoral bony deformity and increased joint line convergence angle (JLCA). The JLCA is a product of intra-articular deformity and lateral soft tissue laxity. This study aims to define the correlation between the JLCA and progression of OA. METHODS: A retrospective radiological analysis of 501 patients, who underwent either high tibial osteotomy (HTO) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), was performed. The preoperative OA grade was reported based on the Ahlbäck and the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL). The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), the mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) and the joint line convergence angle (JLCA) were recorded. The primary outcome was the relationship between the JLCA values and the OA grade. The secondary outcomes were comparing the JLCA and other alignment parameter values between HTO and UKA groups. RESULTS: A total of 501 (59.3% females n = 297) cases were included, comprising 293 cases of HTO and 208 cases of UKA. Patients had a mean age of 57.63 ± 8.97 years, a mean BMI of 28.37 ± 7.39 kg/m2. Patients with Ahlbäck grade 2 represented 49.3% of all patients (n = 247) and patients with KL grade 3 represented 54.7% of all patients (n = 274). A high JLCA was observed in both groups. The reported mean JLCA in the UKA group was 3.69 ± 2.1°, and in the HTO group was 2.93 ± 1.82. There was a significant association between the increase in the JLCA and the progression of OA based on both the Ahlbäck and KL grades (both p values < 0.001). The mean JLCA in patients with Ahlbäck grades 1 and 4 was 1.48 ± 1.32°, and 7 ± 0.93°, respectively. The mean JLCA in patients with KL grades 1 and 4 was 1.77 ± 1.42°, and 4.89 ± 1.73°, respectively. The mean recorded preoperative HKA angle in the UKA group was 175.06 ± 3.08°, and in the HTO group was 173.26 ± 3.02°, whereas the mean MPTA was 88.63 ± 1.72° for the UKA group and 89.31 ± 2.29° for the HTO group. CONCLUSION: The JLCA progressively increases with osteoarthritis progression in patients with unicompartmental varus knee osteoarthritis. The JLCA can potentially be used as a grading parameter for osteoarthritis progression akin to Ahlbäck and Kellgren-Lawrence grading systems.

MCID and PASS in Knee Surgeries. Theoretical Aspects and Clinical Relevance References.

The application and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), following knee injuries, pathologies, and interventions, can be challenging. In recent years, the literature has been enriched with metrics to facilitate our understanding and interpretation of these outcome measures. Two commonly utilized tools include the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptoms state (PASS). These measures have demonstrated clinical value, however, they have often been under- or mis-reported. It is paramount to use them to understand the clinical significance of any statistically significant results. Still, it remains important to know their caveats and limitations. In this focused report on MCID and PASS, their definitions, methods of calculations, clinical relevance, interpretations, and limitations are reviewed and presented in a simple approach.

Multivariable regression: understanding one of medicine's most fundamental statistical tools.

Multivariable regression is a fundamental tool that drives observational research in orthopaedic surgery. However, regression analyses are not always implemented correctly. This study presents a basic overview of regression analyses and reviews frequent points of confusion. Topics include linear, logistic, and time-to-event regressions, causal inference, confounders, overfitting, missing data, multicollinearity, interactions, and key differences between multivariable versus multivariate regression. The goal is to provide clarity regarding the use and interpretation of multivariable analyses for those attempting to increase their statistical literacy in orthopaedic research.

Choosing the appropriate measure of central tendency: mean, median, or mode?

Mean, median, and mode are among the most basic and consistently used measures of central tendency in statistical analysis and are crucial for simplifying data sets to a single value. However, there is a lack of understanding of when to use each metric and how various factors can impact these values. The aim of this article is to clarify some of the confusion related to each measure and explain how to select the appropriate metric for a given data set. The authors present this work as an educational resource, ensuring that these common statistical concepts are better understood throughout the Orthopedic research community.