4.3 Article

Return to sport following isolated opening wedge high tibial osteotomy

期刊

KNEE
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 1306-1312

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.08.002

关键词

High tibial osteotomy; Return to sport; Medial osteoarthritis; Varus deformity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purposes of the study are as follows: (1) examine the timeline of return to sport (RTS) following isolated high tibial osteotomy (HTO), (2) evaluate the degree of participation and function upon RTS and (3) identify reasons that patients do not return or discontinue participation in sport activity. Methods: Patients undergoing isolated HTO were reviewed retrospectively at a minimum of two years post-operatively. Patients completed a subjective sports questionnaire, a visual analog scale for pain, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, and a satisfaction questionnaire. Results: Thirty-eight patients (70.4%) were included at an average of 9.0 +/- 3.3 years. Thirty-four patients (average age 42.7 +/- 7.2 years, 90.0% with a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of III/IV) participated in sports within three years prior to surgery. Eighteen patients (52.9%) returned to the operating room by the time of final follow-up, including 13 patients (38.2%) who underwent salvage arthroplasty by 6.1 +/- 3.6 years following HTO. Thirty patients (88.2%) returned to >= 1 sport at an average of 7.5 +/- 5.0 months; however only 41.2% were able to return to preinjury level of participation. Conclusions: In patients with medial osteoarthritis and varus deformity, isolated high tibial osteotomy provides a high rate (88.2%) of return to sport by 7.5 months postoperatively, yet only a fraction of patients returned to their preinjury level. HTO is not a definitive treatment option as nearly 40% of patients underwent knee arthroplasty by 6.1 years post-operatively. Patient expectations regarding return to sport can be appropriately managed with adequate preoperative patient education. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据