Sir,
We read this paper with interest and we would like to make the following points:
1. Patient randomisation was described as being in ‘blocks
of 16’. The exact randomisation method is not described.
Did the authors mean that 16 closing-wedge osteotomies
were performed followed by 16 opening-wedge operations?
2. The study involved four surgeons. Did the results of
the individual surgeons differ in any way?
3. It is clinically difficult to predict which patients
will have a poor result from the osteotomies described.1
In their study did the authors find any predictive factors
for individual good or bad results?
4. Moderate overcorrection is desirable,1 with
overcorrection of between 2 to 8 valgus to the mechanical
axis being described as ideal.1-3 What was the evidence
base for using the 4° valgus overcorrection, as opposed to
a range, as the primary outcome of this study?
5. The overall complication rates were high. In the
opening-wedge group the complication rate was 44/45 (98%).
For the closing-wedge group it was 16/47 (34%). On this
basis we would not perform these operations.
M. Alam, Specialist Registrar Orthopaedic Surgery,
D.M. Ricketts, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon,
Princess Royal Hospital,
Haywards Heath, UK.
1. Wright JM, Crockett HC, Slawski DP, Madsen MW, Windsor RE. High Tibial Osteotomy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005;13:279-289.
2. Coventry MB, Ilstrup DM, Wallrichs SL. Proximal tibial osteotomy: a critical long-term study of eighty-seven cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1993;75:196-201.
3. Valenti JR, Calvo R, Lopez R, Canadell J. Long term evaluation of high tibial valgus osteotomy. Int Orthop 1990;14:347-9.