title: Open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: comparison between manual and computer-assisted techniques.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of our study was to compare clinical and radiological results of two groups of patients treated for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with either conventional or computer-assisted open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Goals of surgical treatment were a correction of the mechanical axis between 2° and 6° of valgus and a modification of posterior tibial slope between -2° and +2°.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-four patients (27 knees) affected by varus knee deformity and operated with HTO were prospectively followed-up. They were randomly divided in two groups, A (11 patients, conventional treatment) and B (13 patients, navigated treatment). The American Knee Society Score and the Modified Cincinnati Rating System Questionnaire were used for clinical assessment. All patients were radiologically evaluated with a comparative lower limb weight-bearing digital radiograph, a standard digital anteroposterior, a latero-lateral radiograph of the knee, and a Rosenberg view.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Patients were followed-up at a mean of 39 months. Clinical evaluation showed no statistical difference (n.s.) between the two groups. Radiological results showed an 86% reproducibility in achieving a mechanical axis of 182°-186° in group B compared to a 23% in group A (p = 0.0392); furthermore, in group B, we achieved a modification of posterior tibial slope between -2° and +2° in 100% of patients, while in group A, this goal was achieved only in 24% of cases (p = 0.0021).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  High tibial osteotomy with navigator is more accurate and reproducible in the correction of the deformity compared to standard technique.
  
  
  METHODS
  Therapeutic study, Level II.
authors: Orthopaedic Unit and Kirk Kilgour Sports Injury Centre, S. Andrea Hospital, University of Rome Sapienza, Largo Olgiata 15, isola 75 edificio 3/2, 00123, Rome, RM, Italy.
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Iorio
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Pagnottelli
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Vadalà
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Giannetti
authors: P
authors: P
authors: Di Sette
authors: P
authors: P
authors: Papandrea
authors: F
authors: F
authors: Conteduca
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Ferretti
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D056305:Genu Varum / Q000150:complications / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000534:rehabilitation / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D020370:Osteoarthritis, Knee / Q000150:complications / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000534:rehabilitation / Q000601:surgery*; D010027:Osteotomy / Q000379:methods* / Q000534:rehabilitation; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011859:Radiography; D025321:Surgery, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods* / Q000534:rehabilitation; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013977:Tibia / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D016896:Treatment Outcome