Comparing Conventional and Navigation-assisted Techniques for Lateral Opening-wedge Femoral Varus Osteotomy

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_COSTA_Comparing_Conventional_and_Navigationassisted_Techniques_for_Lateral_Openingwedge_2019.PDF (110.71 KB)
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Autores
Citação
TECHNIQUES IN ORTHOPAEDICS, v.34, n.3, p.E9-E11, 2019
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess short-term clinical and radiographic results of opening-wedge distal femoral varus osteotomy performed using either the conventional technique or a navigation (NAV)-assisted technique. Materials and Methods: This study included 25 patients; 12 patients underwent femoral osteotomy with NAV, and 13 patients underwent the conventional procedure. Results: In the NAV osteotomy group, the mean duration of surgery was 73.69 minutes (SD, 12.53 min), and the mean tourniquet time was 59 minutes. Mean preoperative mechanical alignments were 13.84 degrees in the conventional osteotomy group and 14.4 degrees in the NAV osteotomy group (P=0.7432; 95% confidence interval=12.8-15.4 degrees), and the final postoperative mechanical alignment varied between -2 and 3 degrees in both groups, with no significant difference between the results obtained using the 2 techniques (P=0.1316; 95% confidence interval=0.08-1.24 degrees). However, the correlation between initial alignment and postoperative result was strong (P=-0.68) in the NAV osteotomy group and weak (P=-0.07) in the conventional osteotomy group. Conclusions: Duration of surgery and tourniquet time were longer in the NAV osteotomy group. The use of NAV for femoral varus osteotomy did not result in any significant difference in final alignment.
Palavras-chave
osteotomy, navigation, femoral, knee, osteoarthritis
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/34206
Referências
  1. Cameron JI, 2015, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V473, P2009, DOI 10.1007/s11999-014-4106-8
  2. COVENTRY MB, 1985, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V67A, P1136, DOI 10.2106/00004623-198567070-00025
  3. Dillon CF, 2006, J RHEUMATOL, V33, P2271
  4. Finkelstein JA, 1996, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V78A, P1348, DOI 10.2106/00004623-199609000-00008
  5. Haviv B, 2013, KNEE SURG SPORT TR A, V21, P49, DOI 10.1007/s00167-012-2180-6
  6. INSALL JN, 1984, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V66A, P1040, DOI 10.2106/00004623-198466070-00010
  7. Jackson Douglas W, 2007, J Knee Surg, V20, P134
  8. Lorenz S, 2007, OPER TECH ORTHOP, V17, P58, DOI 10.1053/j.oto.2006.12.001
  9. Maurer F, 2006, ORTHOPEDICS, V29, pS130
  10. Pearle AD, 2009, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V91A, P90, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.H.01439
  11. Puddu G, 2007, SPORTS MED ARTHROSC, V15, P15, DOI 10.1097/JSA.0b013e3180305c76
  12. Puddu G, 2010, INT ORTHOP, V34, P239, DOI 10.1007/s00264-009-0820-3
  13. Reising K, 2013, KNEE SURG SPORT TR A, V21, P181, DOI 10.1007/s00167-012-2088-1
  14. Saragaglia D, 2012, INT ORTHOP, V36, P999, DOI 10.1007/s00264-011-1363-y
  15. Scott D, 2004, CLIN EVID, V11, P1560
  16. Siston RA, 2007, J BIOMECH, V40, P728, DOI 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.01.006
  17. Symmons D, 2002, GLOBAL BURDEN OSTEOA, P1
  18. Thein R, 2012, J ORTHOP SCI, V17, P745, DOI 10.1007/s00776-012-0273-1

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/IOT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/41