Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2020; 33(06): 565-575
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681065
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Opening-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy Using Autograft versus Allograft: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Yi-Ming Ren   *
1   Department of Joint and Sport Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center, China
,
Yuan-Hui Duan   *
1   Department of Joint and Sport Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center, China
,
Yun-Bo Sun   *
1   Department of Joint and Sport Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center, China
,
Tao Yang
1   Department of Joint and Sport Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center, China
,
Wei-Yu Hou
1   Department of Joint and Sport Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center, China
,
Ru-Sen Zhu
2   Department of Spine Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, China
,
Meng-Qiang Tian
1   Department of Joint and Sport Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center, China
› Author Affiliations Funding This research is supported by Foundation of Tianjin Union Medical Center (2017YJ018).
Further Information

Publication History

11 June 2018

22 January 2019

Publication Date:
12 March 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Bone grafting is a good alternative for filling the inevitable void that is created following opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether bone grafting is necessary for OWHTO and the successful outcomes of OWHTO using either autograft (AU) or allograft (AL). All analyzed studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted by two coauthors and were analyzed using RevMan5.3. Mean differences, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 10 studies were assessed including three randomized controlled trials and seven observational studies. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to high. The overall estimate demonstrated that the difference between OWHTO using AU and AL groups and OWHTO using no filling group was not statistically significant for the loss of correction, and complications, but OWHTO using no filling group statistically showed better knee society score. Pooled results of reoperations, lateral cortex breaches, complications, and clinical function assessments showed no significant difference between AU and AL materials. Using AL statistically reduced the operative time compared with using AU. OWHTO with or without bone graft does not affect postoperative complications. No loss of correction was observed due to the lack of bone grafting. In addition, OWHTO without bone graft performs better for postoperative clinical function assessment. Complications and clinical results of medial OWHTO were similar using AL and AU and neither reported a median loss of correction of following OWHTO. Compared with using AU, using AL avoids harvest site complications and reduces operative time. To sum up, OWHTO without any bone graft is recommended for medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. Further large-sample, multicenter, high-quality, randomized controlled trials are warranted to verify the outcomes of this meta-analysis.

Keywords

opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy - autograft - allograft - systematic review - meta-analysis

* These authors contributed equally to this work.


 

  • References

  • 1 Magnussen RA, Lustig S, Demey G, Neyret P, Servien E. The effect of medial opening and lateral closing high tibial osteotomy on leg length. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (09) 1900-1905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bito H, Takeuchi R, Kumagai K. , et al. Opening wedge high tibial osteotomy affects both the lateral patellar tilt and patellar height. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (07) 955-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Osman WS, Yousef MG, El-Gebeily MA. , et al. Tibial slope and patellar height changes following high tibial osteotomy (a comparative study). Eur Orthop Traumatol 2015; 22 (03) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yang JH, Lee SH, Nathawat KS, Jeon SH, Oh KJ. The effect of biplane medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy on patellofemoral joint indices. Knee 2013; 20 (02) 128-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lobenhoffer P, Agneskirchner JD. Improvements in surgical technique of valgus high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2003; 11 (03) 132-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lash NJ, Feller JA, Batty LM, Wasiak J, Richmond AK. Bone grafts and bone substitutes for opening-wedge osteotomies of the knee: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (04) 720-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Akizuki S, Shibakawa A, Takizawa T, Yamazaki I, Horiuchi H. The long-term outcome of high tibial osteotomy: a ten- to 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (05) 592-596
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aryee S, Imhoff AB, Rose T, Tischer T. Do we need synthetic osteotomy augmentation materials for opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Biomaterials 2008; 29 (26) 3497-3502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eid K, Zelicof S, Perona BP, Sledge CB, Glowacki J. Tissue reactions to particles of bone-substitute materials in intraosseous and heterotopic sites in rats: discrimination of osteoinduction, osteocompatibility, and inflammation. J Orthop Res 2001; 19 (05) 962-969
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gaasbeek RD, Toonen HG, van Heerwaarden RJ, Buma P. Mechanism of bone incorporation of beta-TCP bone substitute in open wedge tibial osteotomy in patients. Biomaterials 2005; 26 (33) 6713-6719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Han JH, Kim HJ, Song JG. , et al. Is bone grafting necessary in opening wedge high tibial osteotomy? A meta-analysis of radiological outcomes. Knee Surg Relat Res 2015; 27 (04) 207-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Spahn G. Complications in high tibial (medial opening wedge) osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004; 124 (10) 649-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kuremsky MA, Schaller TM, Hall CC, Roehr BA, Masonis JL. Comparison of autograft vs allograft in opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (06) 951-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cho SW, Kim DH, Lee GC, Lee SH, Park SH. Comparison between autogenous bone graft and allogenous cancellous bone graft in medial open wedge high tibial osteotomy with 2-year follow-up. Knee Surg Relat Res 2013; 25 (03) 117-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jiang HT. Comparison of the curative effect of three different bone graft materials in high tibial osteotomy. United University of Hebei; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Ramin E, Mortazavi SMJ, Hasan KM, Babak H, Shideh Y. Efficacy and safety of iliac crest allograft in medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy compared to iliac crest autograft: a randomized controlled trial. Orthop Proc 2012; 94-B: 261-261
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alolabi B, Dianne B, Fowler PJ, Willits K, Giffin JR. Graft choice in medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: autovsallograft. Orthopaedicproceedings 2011; 93-B (SUPP_IV): 581
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zorzi AR, da Silva HG, Muszkat C, Marques LC, Cliquet Jr A, de Miranda JB. Opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy with and without bone graft. Artif Organs 2011; 35 (03) 301-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pornrattanamaneewong C, Numkanisorn S, Chareancholvanich K, Harnroongroj T. A retrospective analysis of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy for varus osteoarthritic knee. Indian J Orthop 2012; 46 (04) 455-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pornrattanamaneewong C, Harnroongroj T, Chareancholvanich K. Loss of correction after medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: a comparison of locking plates without bone grafts and nonlocking compression plates with bone grafts. J Med Assoc Thai 2012; 95 (09) 21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Elsayed S, Mohamed A, Soliman O. , et al. Tibial slope alteration in medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy with and without a bone graft: a double cohort study. Egypt Orthop J 2013; 48: 301-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Passarelli MC, Filho JRT, Brizzi FAM, Campos GC, Zorzi AR, Miranda JB. Comparison of Puddu osteotomy with or without autologous bone grafting: a prospective clinical trial. Rev Bras Ortop 2017; 52 (05) 555-560
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chae DJ, Shetty GM, Wang KH, Montalban Jr AS, Kim JI, Nha KW. Early complications of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy using autologous tricortical iliac bone graft and T-plate fixation. Knee 2011; 18 (04) 278-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield ML. Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; 339 (339) 76-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD. , et al. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (02) 134-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ganji R, Omidvar M, Izadfar A, Alavinia SM. Opening wedge high tibial osteotomy using tibial wedge allograft: a case series study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2013; 23 (01) 111-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Santic V, Tudor A, Sestan B, Legovic D, Sirola L, Rakovac I. Bone allograft provides bone healing in the medial opening high tibial osteotomy. Int Orthop 2010; 34 (02) 225-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Engel GM, Lippert III FG. Valgus tibial osteotomy: avoiding the pitfalls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1981; 160 (160) 137-143
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kettelkamp DB, Leach RE, Nasca R. Pitfalls of proximal tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975; 104 (106) 232-241
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Matthews LS, Goldstein SA, Malvitz TA, Katz BP, Kaufer H. Proximal tibial osteotomy. Factors that influence the duration of satisfactory function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 229 (229) 193-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Naudie D, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Bourne TJ. The Install Award. Survivorship of the high tibial valgus osteotomy. A 10- to -22-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; 367 (367) 18-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Spahn G, Wittig R. Primary stability of various implants in tibial opening wedge osteotomy: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Sci 2002; 7 (06) 683-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Miller BS, Dorsey WO, Bryant CR, Austin JC. The effect of lateral cortex disruption and repair on the stability of the medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (10) 1552-1557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Flamme CH, Kohn D, Kirsch L, Hurschler C. Primary stability of different implants used in conjunction with high tibial osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1999; 119 (7-8): 450-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Miniaci A, Ballmer FT, Ballmer PM, Jakob RP. Proximal tibial osteotomy. A new fixation device. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 246 (246) 250-259
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hernigou P, Medevielle D, Debeyre J, Goutallier D. Proximal tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis with varus deformity. A ten to thirteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69 (03) 332-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar