2025 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster
Clinical Benefits Of Cartilage Repair In High Tibial Osteotomy Can Only Be Expected In Patients With Successfully Regenerated Cartilage.
Se-Han Jung, MD, Seoul KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
Min Jung, MD, PhD, Seoul KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
Kwangho Chung, MD, Seoul KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
Hyun-Soo Moon, MD, PhD, Seoul KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
Sung-Hwan Kim, MD, PhD, Seoul KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine , Seoul, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
FDA Status Not Applicable
Summary
Clinical Benefits of Cartilage Repair in High Tibial Osteotomy Can Only be Expected in Patients with Successfully Regenerated Cartilage.
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Purpose
To determine the additional clinical benefits of combined cartilage procedures performed with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) by comparing them with isolated HTO, stratified by 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 two groups: HTO + combined cartilage procedures (C group) and isolated HTO (I group). C group was further divided into two 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, C2-matched group I), based on baseline factors affecting clinical outcomes. Comparative analysis was performed for each matched pair in 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, 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 final follow-up compared to the C1-matched I group (VAS, p<0.001; Lysholm, p=0.004; KOOS subscales, p≤0.018). However, the C2 group did not show any differences in PROs compared to the C2-matched I group at final follow-up.
Conclusion
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.