Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(09): 949-958
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721027
Original Article

Return to Sport and Work after Randomization for Knee Distraction versus High Tibial Osteotomy: Is There a Difference?

Alexander Hoorntje
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2   Academic Center for Evidence-Based Sports Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3   Amsterdam Collaboration on Health & Safety in Sports, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foundation FORCE (Foundation for Orthopaedic Research Care and Education), Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
,
P. Paul F. M. Kuijer
5   Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Koen L. M. Koenraadt
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foundation FORCE (Foundation for Orthopaedic Research Care and Education), Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
,
Suzanne Waterval-Witjes
2   Academic Center for Evidence-Based Sports Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3   Amsterdam Collaboration on Health & Safety in Sports, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foundation FORCE (Foundation for Orthopaedic Research Care and Education), Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
,
Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2   Academic Center for Evidence-Based Sports Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3   Amsterdam Collaboration on Health & Safety in Sports, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Simon C. Mastbergen
6   Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Anne C. A. Marijnissen
6   Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Mylène P. Jansen
6   Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Rutger C. I. van Geenen
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foundation FORCE (Foundation for Orthopaedic Research Care and Education), Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Return to Sport and Work after Randomization for Knee Distraction versus High Tibial Osteotomy: Is There a Difference?J Knee Surg eFirst
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727158

Abstract

Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a novel technique for relatively young knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. With KJD, an external distraction device creates temporary total absence of contact between cartilage surfaces, which results in pain relief and possibly limits the progression of knee OA. Recently, KJD showed similar clinical outcomes compared with high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Yet, no comparative data exist regarding return to sport (RTS) and return to work (RTW) after KJD. Therefore, our aim was to compare RTS and RTW between KJD and HTO. We performed a cross-sectional follow-up study in patients <65 years who previously participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing KJD and HTO. Out of 62 eligible patients, 55 patients responded and 51 completed the questionnaire (16 KJDs and 35 HTOs) at 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome measures were the percentages of RTS and RTW. Secondary outcome measures included time to RTS/RTW, and pre- and postoperative Tegner's (higher is more active), and Work Osteoarthritis or Joint-Replacement Questionnaire (WORQ) scores (higher is better work ability). Patients' baseline characteristics did not differ. Total 1 year after KJD, 79% returned to sport versus 80% after HTO (not significant [n.s.]). RTS <6 months was 73 and 75%, respectively (n.s.). RTW 1 year after KJD was 94 versus 97% after HTO (n.s.), and 91 versus 87% <6 months (n.s.). The median Tegner's score decreased from 5.0 to 3.5 after KJD, and from 5.0 to 3.0 after HTO (n.s.). The mean WORQ score improvement was higher after HTO (16 ± 16) than after KJD (6 ± 13; p = 0.04). Thus, no differences were found for sport and work participation between KJD and HTO in our small, though first ever, cohort. Overall, these findings may support further investigation into KJD as a possible joint-preserving option for challenging “young” knee OA patients. The level of evidence is III.

Keywords

high tibial osteotomy - knee joint distraction - return to sport - return to work - physical activity

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 18 July 2020

Accepted: 05 October 2020

Article published online:
23 November 2020

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2606-2612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Otten R, van Roermund PM, Picavet HSJ. [Trends in the number of knee and hip arthroplasties: considerably more knee and hip prostheses due to osteoarthritis in 2030]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2010; 154: A1534
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Culliford D, Maskell J, Judge A, Cooper C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Arden NK. COASt Study Group. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23 (04) 594-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nilsdotter AK, Toksvig-Larsen S, Roos EM. Knee arthroplasty: are patients' expectations fulfilled? A prospective study of pain and function in 102 patients with 5-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (01) 55-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Witjes S, van Geenen RC, Koenraadt KL. et al. Expectations of younger patients concerning activities after knee arthroplasty: are we asking the right questions?. Qual Life Res 2017; 26 (02) 403-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP. et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017; 389 (10077): 1424-1430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Santaguida PL, Hawker GA, Hudak PL. et al. Patient characteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Can J Surg 2008; 51 (06) 428-436
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lange JK, Lee YY, Spiro SK, Haas SB. Satisfaction rates and quality of life changes following total knee arthroplasty in age-differentiated cohorts. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (05) 1373-1378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Parvizi J, Nunley RM, Berend KR. et al. High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 133-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Khan M, Adili A, Winemaker M, Bhandari M. Management of osteoarthritis of the knee in younger patients. CMAJ 2018; 190 (03) E72-E79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Arnold MP, Hirschmann MT, Verdonk PCM. See the whole picture: knee preserving therapy needs more than surface repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (02) 195-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Orth P, Gao L, Madry H. Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: a systematic review of the contemporary literature. 2019; DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05359-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 de Windt TS, Vonk LA, Brittberg M, Saris DBF. Treatment and prevention of (early) osteoarthritis using articular cartilage repair-fact or fiction? A systematic review. Cartilage 2013; 4 (3, Suppl): 5S-12S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Harris JD, Siston RA, Pan X, Flanigan DC. Autologous chondrocyte implantation: a systematic review. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 2010; 92 (12) 2220-2233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zitsch BP, Stannard JP, Worley JR, Cook JL, Leary EV. Patient-reported outcomes for large bipolar osteochondral allograft transplantation in combination with realignment osteotomies for the knee. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (11) 1260-1266
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stannard JP, Cook JL. Prospective assessment of outcomes after primary unipolar, multisurface, and bipolar osteochondral allograft transplantations in the knee: a comparison of 2 preservation methods. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (06) 1356-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Brusalis CM, Greditzer IV HG, Fabricant PD, Stannard JP, Cook JL. BioCartilage augmentation of marrow stimulation procedures for cartilage defects of the knee: two-year clinical outcomes. Knee 2020; 27 (05) 1418-1425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Seil R, van Heerwaarden R, Lobenhoffer P, Kohn D. The rapid evolution of knee osteotomies. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (01) 1-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Price A, Beard D, Thienpont E. Uncertainties surrounding the choice of surgical treatment for ‘bone on bone’ medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee 2013; 20 (Suppl. 01) S16-S20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kim J-H, Kim H-J, Lee D-H. Survival of opening versus closing wedge high tibial osteotomy: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2017; 7 (01) 7296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hoorntje A, Witjes S, Kuijer PPFM. et al. High rates of return to sports activities and work after osteotomies around the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2017; 47 (11) 2219-2244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hoorntje A, Kuijer PPFM, van Ginneken BT. et al. Prognostic factors for return to sport after high tibial osteotomy: a directed acyclic graph approach. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (08) 1854-1862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hoorntje A, Kuijer PPFM, van Ginneken BT. et al. Predictors of return to work after high tibial osteotomy: the importance of being a breadwinner. Orthop J Sports Med 2019; 7 (12) 2325967119890056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wiegant K, van Heerwaarden R, van der Woude J-T. et al. Knee joint distraction as an alternative surgical treatment for osteoarthritis: rationale and design of two randomized controlled trials (vs high tibial osteotomy and total knee prosthesis). Int J Orthod 2015; 2 (04) 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Intema F, Van Roermund PM, Marijnissen ACA. et al. Tissue structure modification in knee osteoarthritis by use of joint distraction: an open 1-year pilot study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70 (08) 1441-1446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 van der Woude JAD, Wiegant K, van Roermund PM. et al. Five-year follow-up of knee joint distraction: clinical benefit and cartilaginous tissue repair in an open uncontrolled prospective study. Cartilage 2017; 8 (03) 263-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 van der Woude JAD, Wiegant K, van Heerwaarden RJ. et al. Knee joint distraction compared with high tibial osteotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 876-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Jansen MP, Besselink NJ, van Heerwaarden RJ. et al. Knee joint distraction compared with high tibial osteotomy and total knee arthroplasty: two-year clinical, radiographic, and biochemical marker outcomes of two randomized controlled trials. Cartilage 2019; 100: 1947603519828432
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Brinkman J-M, Lobenhoffer P, Agneskirchner JD, Staubli AE, Wymenga AB, van Heerwaarden RJ. Osteotomies around the knee: patient selection, stability of fixation and bone healing in high tibial osteotomies. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (12) 1548-1557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Miniaci A, Ballmer FT, Ballmer PM, Jakob RP. Proximal tibial osteotomy. A new fixation device. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (246) 250-259
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Vail T, Mallon W, Liebelt R. Athletic activities after joint arthroplasty. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 1996; 4: 298-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Eshuis R, Lentjes GW, Tegner Y, Wolterbeek N, Veen MR. Dutch translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016; 46 (11) 976-983
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kievit AJ, Kuijer PPFM, Kievit RA, Sierevelt IN, Blankevoort L, Frings-Dresen MHW. A reliable, valid and responsive questionnaire to score the impact of knee complaints on work following total knee arthroplasty: the WORQ. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (06) 1169-1175.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kuijer PPFM, Van der Molen HF, Frings-Dresen MHW. Evidence-based exposure criteria for work-related musculoskeletal disorders as a tool to assess physical job demands. Work 2012; 41 (Suppl. 01) 3795-3797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Proper KI, van den Heuvel SG, De Vroome EM, Hildebrandt VH, Van der Beek AJ, Proper KI. Dose-response relation between physical activity and sick leave. Br J Sports Med 2006; 40 (02) 173-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hoorntje A, van Ginneken BT, Kuijer PPFM. et al. Eight respectively nine out of ten patients return to sport and work after distal femoral osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (07) 2345-2353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Witjes S, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM, van Geenen RCI, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GMMJ. Return to sports and physical activity after total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2016; 46 (02) 269-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kievit AJ, Kuijer PPFM, de Haan LJ. et al. Patients return to work sooner after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty than after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05667-0.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Goh EL, Lou WCN, Chidambaram S, Ma S. The role of joint distraction in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and quantitative analysis. Orthop Res Rev 2019; 11: 79-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 van der Woude JAD, Wiegant K, van Heerwaarden RJ. et al. Knee joint distraction compared with total knee arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (01) 51-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Duivenvoorden T, van Diggele P, Reijman M. et al. Adverse events and survival after closing- and opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a comparative study of 412 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 895-901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar