↓ Skip to main content

Fixator-assisted Technique Enables Less Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis in Medial Opening-wedge High Tibial Osteotomy: A Novel Technique

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Fixator-assisted Technique Enables Less Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis in Medial Opening-wedge High Tibial Osteotomy: A Novel Technique
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4343-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dong Hoon Lee, Keun Jung Ryu, Hae Hwa Kim, Sahyun Soung, Soowan Shin

Abstract

Opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy is a well-established procedure in the management of medial osteoarthritis of the knee and correction of proximal tibia vara. Recently, surgical approaches using less invasive plate osteosynthesis have been used with the goal of minimizing complications from more extensive soft tissue exposures. However, to our knowledge, less invasive fixator-assisted plate osteosynthesis has not been tested in the setting of opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy. The purposes of this study were (1) to assess the complications associated with use of a fixator-assisted less invasive plate osteosynthesis technique to stabilize an opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy in the treatment of proximal tibial vara; and (2) to evaluate the ability of this technique to achieve correction of the proximal tibial deformity and achieve osseous union. From June 2011 to June 2013, a total of 157 limbs in 83 patients who underwent fixator-assisted high tibial osteotomy for (1) idiopathic genu vara; or (2) osteoarthritis of the knee with proximal tibia vara were initially enrolled. Of these, eight limbs (5%) were excluded on the way; thus, 149 limbs in 77 patients were evaluated. During the period in question, no other techniques were used for proximal tibial osteotomy. The surgical procedures included less preparation of soft tissue, proximal tibial osteotomy, application of a temporary external fixator, correction of alignment, and final fixation with the help of an external fixator. Complications were assessed by chart review and the alignment in both coronal and sagittal planes was compared pre- and postoperatively. Radiographic review to confirm osseous union and alignment was performed by two of the authors not involved in clinical care of the patient. Delayed union was described as union occurring later than 4 months. Thirty limbs out of 149 tibiae (20%) showed complications, all of which were resolved without leaving any sequela. Twenty-seven limbs out of 149 limbs (18%) showed lateral cortical hinge fracture and three limbs out of 149 limbs (2%) showed soft tissue complications (two superficial infections, one wound hematoma). The overall completeness of reaching the target correction was excellent. In the coronal plane, the difference between the amount of real correction and the amount of target correction was 0.3° ± 0.7° (p < 0.001). In the sagittal plane, the difference between pre- and postoperative posterior proximal tibial angle was -0.1° ± 0.2° (p < 0.001). All osteotomies healed before 4 months. Fixator-assisted high tibial osteotomy is a valid option for medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy, which enables less invasive surgery with excellent coronal/sagittal/rotational alignment control. However, future studies should compare this approach with other approaches for proximal tibial osteotomy to ascertain whether indeed this procedure is less invasive or more reliable. Level IV, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,983,785
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,072
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,641
of 279,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#91
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,489 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.