Three dimensional CT analysis of the change in rotational alignment in double level osteotomy after double level osteotomy performed for varus osteoarthritic knees

Kambara, Shunichiro; Nakayama, Hiroshi; Kanto, Ryo; Oonishi, Shintaro; Kanto, Makoto; Yoshiya, Shinichi; Tachibana, Tetsuya; Iseki, Tomoya

doi:10.1016/j.asmart.2021.03.002

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the use of patient-specific simulations and personalized guides provides a reliable method to ensure unchanged rotation with DFO. In contrast, the orientation of bone cuts in BP DFO inevitably leads to unwanted rotational changes in the axial and sagittal planes [8,9]. This justifies the use of patient-specific instruments for the DCC configuration, as they help overcome the limitations associated with freehand techniques and ensure accurate and precise execution of the osteotomy [25][26][27].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies found that the torsional stability of BP DFO was less than that of single plane DFO [ 5 ], and the anterior flange of the BP osteotomy was prone to fracture [ 6 , 7 ]. Furthermore, the studies by Nakayama et al and Kambara et al showed that BP DFO generates internal rotation and flexion due to the mismatch of the two transverse cuts [ 8 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of double chevron-cut and biplanar distal femoral osteotomy techniques: A biomechanical study

Chen,

Hsiung,

Wang

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aimed to compare the stability and mechanical properties of the double chevron-cut (DCC) and biplanar (BP) distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) techniques, along with analyzing their respective contact surface areas. Methods Biomechanical testing was performed using sawbone and 3D modeling techniques to assess axial and torsional stability, torsional stiffness, and maximum torque of both osteotomy configurations. Additionally, 3D models of the sawbone femur were created to calculate and compare the contact surface area of the DCC, BP, and conventional single-plane DFO techniques. Results Axial stiffness and maximum strength did not significantly differ between the two osteotomy techniques. However, in terms of torsional properties, the DCC technique exhibited superior torsional stiffness compared to the BP group (27 ± 7.7 Nm/° vs. 4.5 ± 1.5 Nm/°, p = 0.008). Although the difference in maximum torque did not reach statistical significance (63 ± 10.6 vs. 56 ± 12.1, p = 0.87), it is noteworthy that the DCC group sawbone model exhibited fracture in the shaft region instead of at the osteotomy site. Therefore, the actual maximum torque of the DCC construct may not be accurately reflected by the numerical values obtained in this study. The contact surface area analysis revealed that the BP configuration had the largest contact surface area, 111% larger than that of the single-plane configuration. but 60% of it relied on the less reliable axial cut. Conversely, the DCC osteotomy offered a 31% larger contact surface area than the single-plane configuration, with both surfaces being weight-bearing. Conclusion The DCC osteotomy exhibited superior mechanical stability, showing improved rotational stiffness and maximum torque when compared to the BP osteotomy. Although the BP osteotomy resulted in a larger contact surface area than the DCC osteotomy, both were larger than the conventional single-plane configuration. In clinical practice, both the DCC and BP techniques should be evaluated based on patient-specific characteristics and surgical goals.

show abstract