Table 2 Summary of JLCA influence on osteotomy correction
From: Managing intra-articular deformity in high Tibial osteotomy: a narrative review
Author | Year | Soft tissue correction (Mean ± SD) | What is error Correction? | Identified risks factors for correction errors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Kubota et al. | 2020 | 4.4 ± 2.9 | Difference between the correction angle during surgery and the radiological correction angle | - Pre MPTA, - JLCA is not associated with ovecorrection |
Kumagai et al. | 2020 | – | ΔJLCA > 2° | - Post JLCA on the day of surgery |
Goshima et al. | 2019 | – | Patients overcorrected group if MPTA > 95° | - Larger pre JLCA |
Tsuji et al. | 2019 | 2.0 ± 1.5° | Navigation correction loss > 1.5° | - Higher standing JLCA |
Lee et al. | 2019 | 2.6 ± 2.2° | ΔHKA angle in standing long-bone radiographs – ΔHKA angle in navigation | - JLCA in varus stress - Latent medial laxity |
Takagawa et al. | 2019 | 3.2° | ΔHKA angle – ΔMPTA defined as the soft tissue correction | - Pre JLCA - JLCA in valgus stress |
So et al. | 2019 | 2.0 ± 2.4° | the difference between the change in MA on standing whole-leg radiograph and the coronal correction by navigation > 3° | - Larger ΔJLCA (supine – standing) - Pre varus deformity - Pre JLCA - JLCA in varus stress |
Park et al. | 2019 | 5.8 ± 7.4% | Overcorrection if WBL ratio > 10% of the target WBL | - Pre JLCA - Valgus stress angle - ΔJLCA (pre – post) |
Ogawa et al. | 2016 | 3.4 ± 2.5° | ΔHKA angle – ΔMPTA defined as the soft tissue correction | - JLCA under varus stess - ΔJLCA (pre – post) |
Lee et al. | 2015 | – | WBL ratios < 57 and > 67% were classified as under- or over-corrections | - Pre JLCA - ΔJLCA (pre – post) |