‘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

• Published in: Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2024-04, Vol.32 (4), p.987-999
• Main Authors: Charre, Dimitri, An, Jae‐Sung, Khakha, Raghbir, Kley, Kristian, Şahbat, Yavuz, Ollivier, Matthieu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cross-Sectional Studies; digital planning; Humans; Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging; Knee Joint - surgery; knee osteotomy; metaphyseal deformity; Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery; Osteotomy - methods; Retrospective Studies; Tibia - diagnostic imaging; Tibia - surgery; valgus knee; varus knee
• ISSN: 0942-2056; 1433-7347
• DOI: 10.1002/ksa.12112

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.