Radiographic Assessment of Bone Union in Proximal Tibia and Distal Femur Osteotomies: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
JBJS Open Access Pub Date : 2024-11-05 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00101
Eva A Bax, Netanja I Harlianto, Roel J H Custers, Nienke van Egmond, Wouter Foppen, Moyo C Kruyt
{"title":"Radiographic Assessment of Bone Union in Proximal Tibia and Distal Femur Osteotomies: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Eva A Bax, Netanja I Harlianto, Roel J H Custers, Nienke van Egmond, Wouter Foppen, Moyo C Kruyt","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Osteotomies around the knee are a well-established treatment option for early and moderate unicompartmental osteoarthritis combined with a lower extremity malalignment. Moreover, osteotomies are often combined with cartilage treatment. Current image-based bone union assessments lack an accepted definition despite widespread use in research and clinical settings. The aim of this systematic review was to identify definitions and classification systems for bone union on radiographs after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase database, applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full-texts. The modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool were used. Data extraction included study characteristics, imaging modality, bone union definition, classification systems, assessment of gap fillers, use of modifiers, and osteotomy type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,180 screened titles and abstracts, 105 studies were included, with the majority (69 studies [65.7%]) using a retrospective design. Fifty-five studies (52.4%) defined bone union based on one or more criteria, while 50 studies (47.6%) used a classification system. There were 13 different criteria for bone union and 9 different classification systems. Interestingly, none of the classification systems incorporated negative criteria, such as hardware failure. Notably, 137 studies (49.1%) described bone union as either a primary or secondary outcome but do not describe a system for assessing bone union.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review highlights the lack of consensus in the literature in defining bone union after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy, revealing many criteria and different classifications. None of the classification systems were applicable to osteotomies with and without gap filler. This systematic review shows the need for a straightforward, reproducible, and accurate method to assess bone union after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"9 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11557090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Osteotomies around the knee are a well-established treatment option for early and moderate unicompartmental osteoarthritis combined with a lower extremity malalignment. Moreover, osteotomies are often combined with cartilage treatment. Current image-based bone union assessments lack an accepted definition despite widespread use in research and clinical settings. The aim of this systematic review was to identify definitions and classification systems for bone union on radiographs after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy.

Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase database, applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full-texts. The modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool were used. Data extraction included study characteristics, imaging modality, bone union definition, classification systems, assessment of gap fillers, use of modifiers, and osteotomy type.

Results: Of the 1,180 screened titles and abstracts, 105 studies were included, with the majority (69 studies [65.7%]) using a retrospective design. Fifty-five studies (52.4%) defined bone union based on one or more criteria, while 50 studies (47.6%) used a classification system. There were 13 different criteria for bone union and 9 different classification systems. Interestingly, none of the classification systems incorporated negative criteria, such as hardware failure. Notably, 137 studies (49.1%) described bone union as either a primary or secondary outcome but do not describe a system for assessing bone union.

Conclusion: This systematic review highlights the lack of consensus in the literature in defining bone union after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy, revealing many criteria and different classifications. None of the classification systems were applicable to osteotomies with and without gap filler. This systematic review shows the need for a straightforward, reproducible, and accurate method to assess bone union after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy.

Level of evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

胫骨近端和股骨远端截骨术骨结合的放射学评估:系统回顾
背景:膝关节周围截骨术是治疗早期和中度单髁骨关节炎合并下肢错位的一种行之有效的方法。此外,截骨术通常与软骨治疗相结合。目前基于图像的骨结合评估缺乏公认的定义,尽管在研究和临床中广泛使用。本系统性综述旨在确定胫骨近端或股骨远端截骨术后X光片上骨结合的定义和分类系统:按照《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南,我们系统地检索了 MEDLINE 和 Embase 数据库,并采用了特定的纳入和排除标准。两名独立审稿人筛选了摘要和全文。我们使用了修改后的 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具和干预措施非随机研究中的偏倚风险工具。数据提取包括研究特点、成像方式、骨结合定义、分类系统、间隙填充物评估、修饰语的使用以及截骨类型:在筛选出的 1180 篇标题和摘要中,有 105 项研究被纳入,其中大部分(69 项 [65.7%])采用回顾性设计。55项研究(52.4%)根据一个或多个标准定义骨结合,50项研究(47.6%)使用分类系统。有 13 种不同的骨结合标准和 9 种不同的分类系统。有趣的是,没有一个分类系统包含负面标准,如硬件故障。值得注意的是,137 项研究(49.1%)将骨结合描述为主要或次要结果,但没有描述评估骨结合的系统:本系统性综述强调了文献对胫骨近端或股骨远端截骨术后骨结合的定义缺乏共识,揭示了许多标准和不同的分类。没有一个分类系统适用于有间隙填充物和无间隙填充物的截骨术。本系统综述表明,需要一种直接、可重复、准确的方法来评估胫骨近端或股骨远端截骨术后的骨结合情况:证据等级:三级。有关证据级别的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBJS Open Access
JBJS Open Access Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信