Se-Han Jung, Min Jung, Kwangho Chung, Hyun-Soo Moon, Tae Hyun Kim, Chong-Hyuk Choi, Sung-Hwan Kim
{"title":"胫骨高位截骨术中软骨修复的临床效益只有在软骨再生成功的患者中才能得到预期。","authors":"Se-Han Jung, Min Jung, Kwangho Chung, Hyun-Soo Moon, Tae Hyun Kim, Chong-Hyuk Choi, Sung-Hwan Kim","doi":"10.4055/cios24409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical benefits of combining cartilage procedures with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) remain undetermined. This study aimed to evaluate the additional clinical benefits by comparing a combined procedure group with an isolated HTO group, with stratification based on the success of cartilage regeneration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent medial open-wedge HTO from 2010 to 2022 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: HTO + combined cartilage procedures (C group) and isolated HTO (I group). C group was further divided into 2 subgroups based on the medial femoral condyle (MFC) cartilage status assessed on second-look arthroscopy: well-regenerated cartilage (C1 group) and poorly regenerated cartilage (C2 group). Propensity score-matched I groups were formed for each C1 and C2 group (C1-matched and C2-matched group I), based on baseline factors affecting clinical outcomes. Comparative analysis was performed for each matched pair based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 313 patients were retrospectively reviewed in this study, with 199 patients included in the analysis: 83 patients in the C group (49 in the C1 group and 34 in the C2 group) and 116 patients in the I group. Baseline characteristics showed no significant difference between the matched groups after propensity score matching. The mean follow-up period for all groups was approximately 3 years with no significant differences. The C1 group showed significantly better PROs and improved PROs at the final follow-up compared to the C1-matched I group (visual analog scale score, <i>p</i> < 0.001; Lysholm, <i>p</i> = 0.004; Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.018). However, the C2 group did not show any differences in PROs compared to the C2-matched I group at the final follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Only patients with well-regenerated cartilage after combined cartilage repair procedures showed additional clinical outcome improvements with HTO. When considering combined cartilage repair procedures with HTO, selecting appropriate candidates for achieving successful cartilage regeneration is necessary to yield additional clinical benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":47648,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","volume":"17 4","pages":"607-621"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12328110/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Benefits of Cartilage Repair in High Tibial Osteotomy Can Only Be Expected in Patients with Successfully Regenerated Cartilage.\",\"authors\":\"Se-Han Jung, Min Jung, Kwangho Chung, Hyun-Soo Moon, Tae Hyun Kim, Chong-Hyuk Choi, Sung-Hwan Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.4055/cios24409\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical benefits of combining cartilage procedures with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) remain undetermined. This study aimed to evaluate the additional clinical benefits by comparing a combined procedure group with an isolated HTO group, with stratification based on the success of cartilage regeneration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent medial open-wedge HTO from 2010 to 2022 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: HTO + combined cartilage procedures (C group) and isolated HTO (I group). C group was further divided into 2 subgroups based on the medial femoral condyle (MFC) cartilage status assessed on second-look arthroscopy: well-regenerated cartilage (C1 group) and poorly regenerated cartilage (C2 group). Propensity score-matched I groups were formed for each C1 and C2 group (C1-matched and C2-matched group I), based on baseline factors affecting clinical outcomes. Comparative analysis was performed for each matched pair based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 313 patients were retrospectively reviewed in this study, with 199 patients included in the analysis: 83 patients in the C group (49 in the C1 group and 34 in the C2 group) and 116 patients in the I group. Baseline characteristics showed no significant difference between the matched groups after propensity score matching. The mean follow-up period for all groups was approximately 3 years with no significant differences. The C1 group showed significantly better PROs and improved PROs at the final follow-up compared to the C1-matched I group (visual analog scale score, <i>p</i> < 0.001; Lysholm, <i>p</i> = 0.004; Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.018). However, the C2 group did not show any differences in PROs compared to the C2-matched I group at the final follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Only patients with well-regenerated cartilage after combined cartilage repair procedures showed additional clinical outcome improvements with HTO. When considering combined cartilage repair procedures with HTO, selecting appropriate candidates for achieving successful cartilage regeneration is necessary to yield additional clinical benefits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"607-621\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12328110/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24409\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24409","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:软骨手术联合胫骨高位截骨术(HTO)的临床疗效尚未确定。本研究的目的是通过比较联合手术组和单独HTO组,以及基于软骨再生成功的分层,来评估额外的临床益处。方法:回顾性分析2010年至2022年接受内侧开楔形HTO的患者,随访至少2年。患者分为HTO +联合软骨手术组(C组)和分离HTO组(I组)。C组根据二次关节镜评估股骨内侧髁(MFC)软骨状态分为再生良好的软骨(C1组)和再生不良的软骨(C2组)2个亚组。根据影响临床结果的基线因素,对每个C1组和C2组(C1匹配组和C2匹配组)形成倾向评分匹配I组。根据患者报告的结果(PROs)对每一对配对进行比较分析。结果:本研究共回顾性回顾313例患者,纳入分析199例患者:C组83例(C1组49例,C2组34例),I组116例。倾向评分匹配后,基线特征在匹配组之间无显著差异。各组的平均随访时间约为3年,无显著差异。与C1匹配的I组相比,C1组在最终随访时的PROs和PROs均显著改善(视觉模拟量表评分,p < 0.001;Lysholm, p = 0.004;膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结局评分亚量表,p≤0.018)。然而,在最后的随访中,C2组与C2匹配的I组相比,PROs没有任何差异。结论:只有在联合软骨修复手术后软骨再生良好的患者在HTO治疗后表现出额外的临床结果改善。当考虑联合软骨修复手术与HTO,选择合适的候选人,以实现成功的软骨再生是必要的,产生额外的临床效益。
Clinical Benefits of Cartilage Repair in High Tibial Osteotomy Can Only Be Expected in Patients with Successfully Regenerated Cartilage.
Background: The clinical benefits of combining cartilage procedures with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) remain undetermined. This study aimed to evaluate the additional clinical benefits by comparing a combined procedure group with an isolated HTO group, with stratification based on the success of cartilage regeneration.
Methods: Patients who underwent medial open-wedge HTO from 2010 to 2022 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: HTO + combined cartilage procedures (C group) and isolated HTO (I group). C group was further divided into 2 subgroups based on the medial femoral condyle (MFC) cartilage status assessed on second-look arthroscopy: well-regenerated cartilage (C1 group) and poorly regenerated cartilage (C2 group). Propensity score-matched I groups were formed for each C1 and C2 group (C1-matched and C2-matched group I), based on baseline factors affecting clinical outcomes. Comparative analysis was performed for each matched pair based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
Results: A total of 313 patients were retrospectively reviewed in this study, with 199 patients included in the analysis: 83 patients in the C group (49 in the C1 group and 34 in the C2 group) and 116 patients in the I group. Baseline characteristics showed no significant difference between the matched groups after propensity score matching. The mean follow-up period for all groups was approximately 3 years with no significant differences. The C1 group showed significantly better PROs and improved PROs at the final follow-up compared to the C1-matched I group (visual analog scale score, p < 0.001; Lysholm, p = 0.004; Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, p ≤ 0.018). However, the C2 group did not show any differences in PROs compared to the C2-matched I group at the final follow-up.
Conclusions: Only patients with well-regenerated cartilage after combined cartilage repair procedures showed additional clinical outcome improvements with HTO. When considering combined cartilage repair procedures with HTO, selecting appropriate candidates for achieving successful cartilage regeneration is necessary to yield additional clinical benefits.