Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • For Training Programs
  • Authors
  • Editorial Policy
  • Editorial Board
  • Content Methodology
  • Advertising Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Back to Operative Surgery
Adult Reconstruction

High Tibial Osteotomy

Comprehensive guide to high tibial osteotomy (HTO) for medial compartment osteoarthritis - indications, preoperative planning, opening vs closing wedge techniques, outcomes, and complications for Orthopaedic exam preparation.

Core Procedure
advanced
By OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

MBBS, MS (Ortho) • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Editorial boardMethodologyReview policyReport a correction
High Yield Overview

HIGH TIBIAL OSTEOTOMY

Joint Preservation | Varus Correction | Unloading Medial Compartment

40-60ideal age range (years)
62-65%target Fujisawa point
85-90%10-year survival
3-5°target valgus overcorrection

HTO TECHNIQUE COMPARISON

Opening Wedge
PatternAdd height medially
TreatmentPlate fixation, bone graft optional
Closing Wedge
PatternRemove lateral bone
TreatmentStaple/plate fixation, no graft
Dome/Focal
PatternCurved osteotomy
TreatmentTechnically demanding, multiplanar correction

Critical Must-Knows

  • Opening wedge is now the most common technique worldwide (preserves bone stock, avoids fibular osteotomy)
  • Target mechanical axis at 62-65% of tibial plateau width (Fujisawa point) for optimal outcomes
  • Ideal patient: Age 40-60, BMI under 30, flexion over 120°, stable ligaments, isolated medial OA
  • Maximum opening wedge correction is 12-15mm (avoid excessive posterior tibial slope increase)
  • Loss of correction occurs in 5-10% - ensure rigid fixation and controlled weight-bearing

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    Opening wedge increases posterior tibial slope by ~2° per 5mm opening - can affect ACL graft tension
  • "
    Biplanar osteotomy technique (descending cut preserves posterior cortex) reduces hinge fracture risk to under 10%
  • "
    No bone graft needed for gaps under 10mm with modern locking plates (BONEGRAFT meta-analysis 2019)
  • "
    PROSKAR trial (2022): HTO + KA versus KA alone showed 20% better knee scores at 5 years for medial OA

Critical HTO Exam Concepts

Patient Selection Criteria

Wrong patient = failed osteotomy. Must have: Isolated medial compartment OA (Ahlbäck Grade 1-2), varus malalignment under 15°, age 40-60 years, active lifestyle, BMI under 30. Absolute contraindications: inflammatory arthritis, tibio-femoral instability, flexion contracture over 15°, ROM under 90°, patellofemoral arthritis with symptoms.

Preoperative Planning Essentials

Plan with full-length standing films. Measure mechanical axis deviation (MAD), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), joint line convergence angle (JLCA). Target Fujisawa point at 62-65% plateau width. Calculate correction angle using trigonometry or digital planning software. Check lateral compartment status on MRI.

Opening vs Closing Wedge Decision

Opening wedge advantages: Preserves bone stock, no fibular osteotomy, adjustable correction. Disadvantages: Potential for loss of correction, patellar height increase, delayed union. Closing wedge: More stable fixation, faster union, but removes bone and requires peroneal nerve decompression.

Complications to Anticipate

Common complications: Loss of correction (5-10%), delayed union/nonunion (5%), intra-articular fracture (1-2%), compartment syndrome (under 1%). Late failures: Progression of lateral OA, patellofemoral symptoms, conversion to TKA at mean 10 years. Hinge fracture in 10-20% of opening wedge but usually stable.

Quick Decision Guide - HTO Patient Selection

Patient ProfileClassificationRecommended ApproachKey Pearl
Age 45-55, varus 5-8°, BMI 25, medial OA Grade 1-2Ideal HTO candidateOpening wedge HTO with locking plateTarget 3-5° valgus overcorrection for durability
Age 55-60, varus 10-12°, BMI 28, medial OA Grade 2-3Acceptable but guarded prognosisOpening wedge HTO, consider bone graftCounsel about 10-year TKA conversion rate of 40%
Age over 65, varus over 15°, bicompartmental OAPoor HTO candidateConsider TKA instead of HTOLarge corrections fail early - undercorrection inevitable
Age under 40, post-meniscectomy, isolated medial OAExcellent long-term HTO indicationOpening wedge, consider meniscal allograftHTO delays TKA by 15+ years in young patients
Mnemonic

ACTIVEHTO Patient Selection Criteria

A
Age 40-60 years
Outside this range, consider alternative treatments (TKA for older, wait for younger)
C
Compartment isolated medial
No bicompartmental or tricompartmental OA - lateral must be pristine
T
Tibiofemoral stability intact
ACL/PCL competent - instability is absolute contraindication
I
Inflammatory arthritis absent
No RA, psoriatic, or inflammatory - progression will continue despite HTO
V
Varus under 15 degrees
Large corrections fail early - undercorrection inevitable beyond 15°
E
Excellent ROM (flexion over 120°)
Flexion contracture over 15° or ROM under 90° predicts poor outcome

Memory Hook:An ACTIVE patient is the ideal HTO candidate - young, active lifestyle with isolated medial disease!

Mnemonic

PAHCOOpening Wedge HTO Surgical Steps

P
Planning with full-length films
Calculate correction angle, target Fujisawa point at 62-65% tibial width
A
Approach medial, protect MCL
Incision 4cm distal to joint, subperiosteal dissection, identify pes tendons
H
Hinge preservation crucial
Biplanar osteotomy - descending cut preserves posterior cortex to prevent fracture
C
Correction with gradual opening
Use calibrated spreaders, check alignment with cable/navigation, avoid over-correction
O
Osteosynthesis with locking plate
TomoFix or similar, proximal screws bicortical, distal screws unicortical

Memory Hook:PAHCO - Plan And Hinge Carefully for Opening wedge success!

Mnemonic

PLANSHTO Complications to Discuss in Consent

P
Patellar height increase
Opening wedge raises patella by ~2mm per 5mm correction - can cause instability
L
Loss of correction
5-10% incidence - ensure rigid fixation and protected weight-bearing 6 weeks
A
Avascular necrosis/delayed union
5% delayed union risk, 1-2% nonunion - consider bone graft for gaps over 10mm
N
Neurovascular injury
Peroneal nerve in closing wedge, popliteal vessels in posterior cortex breach
S
Slope increase (posterior tibial)
Opening wedge increases slope ~2° per 5mm - affects ACL tension and kinematics

Memory Hook:Discuss these PLANS before surgery - the 5 key complications to consent!

Overview and Epidemiology

Why HTO Matters in Modern Practice

High tibial osteotomy represents a paradigm shift from historical "young patients waiting for TKA" to active joint preservation surgery that delays arthroplasty by 10-15 years. Modern techniques (opening wedge with locking plates) have improved outcomes dramatically - 85-90% survivorship at 10 years in well-selected patients. The procedure is experiencing a renaissance with improved patient selection, surgical navigation, and understanding of biomechanics.

Patient Demographics

  • Peak age: 45-55 years (ideal window)
  • Gender: Equal distribution M:F
  • Activity level: Active lifestyle essential for success
  • BMI: Optimal under 27, acceptable under 30
  • Occupation: Manual laborers seek joint preservation
  • Geography: More common in Europe/Asia than North America

Clinical Impact

  • Pain relief: 80-85% report excellent pain relief at 2 years
  • Function: Significant improvement in KOOS/WOMAC scores
  • Return to sport: 60-70% return to impact activities
  • Durability: Median implant survival 10-12 years
  • Conversion: 40% convert to TKA by 15 years
  • Societal: Delays TKA, maintains bone stock for future surgery

Biomechanics and Pathophysiology

Varus Knee Biomechanics

Mechanical Axis Deviation Drives Medial Overload

In varus alignment, the mechanical axis passes medial to the knee center, concentrating force in the medial compartment. Normal knees distribute load 60:40 (medial:lateral). Each 1° of varus increases medial compartment load by approximately 10-12%. A knee with 5° varus has 150% of normal medial load - driving progressive cartilage wear.

Normal Knee Alignment

  • Mechanical axis: Hip center → Ankle center passes through knee center
  • Mechanical axis deviation (MAD): 0mm from knee center
  • Load distribution: 60% medial, 40% lateral
  • MPTA (medial proximal tibial angle): 87° ± 2°
  • Joint line convergence: Parallel medial and lateral

Varus Malalignment

  • Mechanical axis: Passes medial to knee center
  • MAD: Greater than 5mm medial (pathologic)
  • Load distribution: 75-80% medial in moderate varus
  • MPTA: Under 85° in tibial varus
  • Progression: 1° varus per year without correction

HTO Correction Principles

ConceptMeasurementTarget ValueClinical Significance
Fujisawa Point% of tibial plateau width from medial62-65%Mechanical axis target for durability - slight lateral shift unloads medial
Correction AngleDegrees of angular correctionMPTA 90-92° (3-5° valgus overcorrection)Undercorrection leads to early failure - aim for 3-5° valgus
Opening Gap Sizemm of medial openingUnder 12mm for single osteotomyGaps over 12mm risk delayed union, excessive slope change
Posterior Tibial SlopeChange in sagittal plane tiltIncrease under 5° from baselineExcessive slope increase destabilizes knee, affects ACL grafts

Classification Systems

HTO Technique Classification

TechniqueApproachBone StockFixationPrimary Use
Opening Wedge (OWHTO)Medial, add bone mediallyPreserved (advantage for future TKA)Locking plate (TomoFix), bone graft optionalMost common worldwide (92% of HTOs), first-line for varus knee
Closing Wedge (CWHTO)Lateral, remove lateral wedgeRemoved (shortens limb 5-10mm)Plate or staples, faster unionHistorical, now less common. Consider for valgus knee requiring varus correction
Dome/Focal OsteotomyCurved multiplanar cutPreservedCompression screws or plateTechnically demanding, allows multiplanar correction. Rarely used.

Ahlbäck Classification of Medial OA (HTO Patient Selection)

Ahlbäck Grade 1-2: Ideal for HTO

GradeRadiographic FindingsCartilage StatusHTO Candidacy
Grade 1Joint space narrowing under 50%Partial-thickness cartilage lossExcellent HTO candidate - high success rate, 90% 10-year survival
Grade 2Joint space obliteration (bone-on-bone)Full-thickness cartilage loss but intact subchondral boneGood HTO candidate - 80-85% 10-year survival, slightly lower than Grade 1

Key Point: Lateral compartment must be pristine (Outerbridge 0-1 on MRI) for HTO success regardless of medial grade.

These grades represent the "sweet spot" for HTO - enough disease to cause symptoms, but sufficient cartilage regeneration potential.

Ahlbäck Grade 3-5: Poor HTO Candidates

GradeRadiographic FindingsCartilage StatusHTO Candidacy
Grade 3Bone attrition 0-5mm wearSubchondral bone exposure with early wearRelative contraindication - consider if young (under 50), counsel about reduced durability
Grade 4Bone attrition 5-10mm wearSignificant bone lossPoor HTO candidate - TKA or UKA preferred, limited regeneration potential
Grade 5Bone attrition over 10mm, subluxationSevere bone loss with joint instabilityAbsolute contraindication - TKA only option, HTO will fail

Clinical Pearl: Even Grade 3 medial disease with Grade 3+ lateral changes is a contraindication - shifting load to diseased compartment predicts rapid failure.

This categorization helps guide the HTO vs TKA decision based on radiographic severity.

Clinical Assessment

History Taking

Pain History

Pattern:

  • Isolated medial joint line pain (load-bearing, stairs, squatting)
  • Worse with activity, relieved by rest (mechanical pain)
  • No night pain (suggests early-moderate OA, not advanced)
  • Absence of lateral or patellofemoral pain (critical for HTO candidacy)

Duration and Progression:

  • Symptoms over 6-12 months minimum
  • Failed conservative management (physio, NSAIDs, injections, bracing)
  • Progression affecting work, recreation, quality of life

Functional Assessment

Activity Goals:

  • Current activity level and limitations
  • Desired activity level post-treatment (return to work, sports)
  • Occupation (manual labor favors HTO for joint preservation)
  • Sports participation (impact activities driving symptoms)

Red Flags for Poor Outcome:

  • Sedentary lifestyle (may not benefit from HTO vs TKA)
  • Unrealistic expectations ("cure" vs joint preservation)
  • Workers compensation/litigation (poor outcome predictor)

Physical Examination

Systematic Knee Examination for HTO

First ImpressionStanding Alignment

Observe from front: Varus alignment visible (knees apart when ankles together). Gait assessment: Varus thrust during stance phase indicates instability (relative contraindication - requires ligament reconstruction first). Single leg stance: Inability to stand on affected leg for 30 seconds predicts poor outcome.

Critical CriteriaRange of Motion

Flexion: Measure maximum flexion - must be over 120° for good HTO outcome (less than 120° predicts poor function). Extension: Check for fixed flexion contracture - over 15° FFD is absolute contraindication (cannot achieve correction). Arc: Document total arc (ideal 0-130° or better).

Absolute RequirementLigamentous Stability

ACL: Lachman and anterior drawer tests - must be negative (ACL deficiency is absolute contraindication - reconstruct first). PCL: Posterior drawer and sag sign - must be intact. MCL/LCL: Varus and valgus stress at 0° and 30° - grade any instability. Varus stress radiographs: Joint should open to near-normal width (confirms correctability vs fixed deformity).

Localize PathologyCompartment Palpation

Medial joint line: Tenderness confirms medial compartment disease. Lateral joint line: Must be painless - any lateral tenderness suggests bicompartmental disease (contraindication). Patellofemoral: Grind test and compression - symptomatic PF is relative contraindication.

Baseline DocumentationNeurovascular

Peroneal nerve: Palpate at fibular neck, test ankle/toe dorsiflexion and foot eversion (document for medicolegal purposes - especially important for closing wedge HTO). Pulses: Palpate dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses. Sensation: Check distribution, particularly first web space (deep peroneal).

Varus Thrust on Gait = Ligamentous Instability

Varus thrust (sudden increase in varus angulation during stance phase of gait) indicates functional instability of medial structures (stretched MCL, meniscal deficiency, or bone loss). This is a relative contraindication to isolated HTO - consider ligament reconstruction or meniscal allograft transplantation concurrent with HTO, or recommend TKA instead. Performing HTO alone in presence of thrust leads to early failure (loss of correction, continued instability symptoms).

Investigations

Radiographic Assessment

Imaging Protocol for HTO Planning

MandatoryFull-Length Standing Radiographs

Views: Standing hip-to-ankle AP radiograph (full mechanical axis visible from femoral head to ankle mortise). Technical requirements: True weight-bearing (patient on both feet), knees straight, patellae facing forward (not rotated). Measurements: Mechanical axis deviation (MAD) from knee center, medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), joint line convergence angle (JLCA). Purpose: Calculate correction angle to bring mechanical axis to Fujisawa point (62-65% tibial plateau width from medial edge).

Baseline AssessmentStandard Knee Radiographs

AP weight-bearing: Assess medial joint space (Ahlbäck grade), lateral compartment status, osteophytes. Lateral: Measure posterior tibial slope baseline (normal 7-10°), assess patellofemoral joint, tibial spine. Merchant or skyline view: Evaluate patellofemoral articulation (symptomatic PF is relative contraindication). Rosenberg view (45° flexion PA): Better visualization of posterior femoral condyles and joint space.

Essential for Patient SelectionMRI Knee

Primary purpose: Assess lateral compartment cartilage status (must be Outerbridge 0-1 for HTO candidacy - any Grade 2+ chondromalacia predicts poor outcome). Secondary assessment: Meniscal integrity (stable tears acceptable, unstable flaps require treatment), ligament status (ACL/PCL must be intact), bone marrow edema pattern (extensive edema suggests advanced disease). Contraindication findings: Lateral compartment disease, full-thickness cartilage loss extending to patellofemoral joint, ACL/PCL tears, AVN of femoral condyle.

Optional but HelpfulVarus Stress Radiographs

Technique: AP radiograph with manual varus stress applied (opens medial compartment). Interpretation: Joint space should open to 5-7mm or more (indicates preserved cartilage and soft tissue correctability). Failure to open suggests fixed deformity from bone loss (poor HTO candidate - consider TKA). Predictive value: Joint opening over 5mm predicts 85% good-excellent outcome vs 60% if opening under 3mm.

Advanced Planning (Optional)CT Long Leg

Indications: Complex deformity (femoral + tibial components), revision HTO planning, extra-articular deformity. Advantages: More accurate than plain films (1mm vs 3-5mm), 3D planning software compatible, can assess tibial torsion. Disadvantages: Radiation exposure (3-4 times plain films), cost, not routinely necessary for standard HTO cases.

Laboratory and Additional Tests

Routine Preoperative Labs

Mandatory:

  • FBC (hemoglobin, platelets - anticipate blood loss)
  • Renal function (contrast studies, perioperative hydration)
  • Coagulation studies if on anticoagulation
  • Group and save (rarely need transfusion, but available)

Selective based on comorbidities:

  • HbA1c if diabetic (target under 8% before elective surgery)
  • ECG if over 65 or cardiac history
  • CXR if respiratory disease or planned anesthesia assessment

Special Investigations

Inflammatory markers (if inflammatory arthritis suspected):

  • ESR, CRP (elevated in RA, psoriatic)
  • RF, anti-CCP (rheumatoid arthritis screen)
  • HLA-B27 (ankylosing spondylitis if axial symptoms)
  • Purpose: Rule out inflammatory arthritis (absolute HTO contraindication)

Bone density (DEXA scan):

  • Indicated if osteoporosis risk factors (post-menopausal woman, chronic steroid use, fragility fracture history)
  • T-score under -2.5 predicts delayed union, loss of correction risk
  • Optimize bone health before HTO if osteopenic

Management Algorithm

📊 Management Algorithm
High tibial osteotomy treatment decision algorithm showing patient selection, varus severity assessment, and technique selection
Click to expand
HTO treatment algorithm: Patient selection criteria (age, BMI, ROM, lateral compartment status), varus severity guides technique choice (opening vs closing wedge), with targets of 3-5 degrees valgus overcorrection and Fujisawa point at 62% tibial width. Expected 10-year survival 75-85% in ideal candidates.Credit: AI-generated educational diagram

HTO vs TKA Decision Algorithm

Treatment Algorithm by Age

Age-Stratified Recommendations

Strongly Favor HTOAge Under 40

Rationale: Too young for TKA (lifetime revision guaranteed with modern life expectancy). HTO provides 15-20 year delay to TKA, preserves bone stock for future surgery.

Approach:

  • HTO first-line treatment if meets criteria (isolated medial OA, stable ligaments, good ROM)
  • Consider adjunct biologics (PRP, microfracture) to enhance cartilage healing
  • Meniscal allograft transplantation if post-meniscectomy
  • Counsel about realistic expectations (joint preservation, not cure)

Expected outcome: 90% good-excellent at 10 years, median HTO survival 15+ years, converts to TKA around age 55-60.

This approach maximizes "joint-years" before eventual arthroplasty.

HTO PreferredAge 40-55

Rationale: Ideal HTO age window. Active lifestyle preservation important. HTO provides 12-15 year delay to TKA with excellent outcomes.

Approach:

  • HTO first-line recommendation if ideal candidate (see selection criteria)
  • Detailed informed consent about outcomes, durability, rehab requirements
  • TKA offered as alternative for low-demand patients who prefer "definitive" solution
  • Shared decision-making based on activity goals, occupation, patient preference

Expected outcome: 85-90% good-excellent at 10 years, 40% convert to TKA by 15 years, HTO does not compromise subsequent TKA results.

This is the "sweet spot" for HTO with maximum benefit-risk ratio.

Individualized (HTO vs TKA)Age 55-65

Rationale: Transition zone - HTO may provide 8-12 year bridge to TKA, or TKA may last patient's lifetime. Decision based on activity level, demand, bone quality, comorbidities.

Approach:

  • Present both options with realistic expectations for each
  • HTO advantages: Joint preservation, maintain bone stock, higher activity level allowed
  • TKA advantages: Definitive solution, faster recovery, may last lifetime (15-20 year modern TKA survival)
  • Patient-driven decision based on values, goals, risk tolerance

Expected outcome HTO: 70-80% good-excellent at 10 years. Expected outcome TKA: 90-95% survivorship at 15 years.

Counsel that either choice is reasonable - no "wrong" answer with informed consent.

TKA PreferredAge Over 65

Rationale: Limited HTO durability (5-7 years median survival over age 65). TKA provides definitive treatment with excellent results and likely to last lifetime.

Approach:

  • TKA first-line recommendation
  • HTO considered only for: very high-demand patients, significant comorbidities making TKA high-risk, patient strong preference for joint preservation despite poor prognosis
  • If HTO performed, detailed consent about limited durability and high conversion rate

Expected outcome HTO: 50-60% survival at 10 years, 60% convert to TKA by 10 years. Expected outcome TKA: 90-95% survivorship at 15 years.

TKA is the evidence-based recommendation for this age group.

This age-based algorithm provides a framework, but individual patient factors always guide final decision.

Treatment Algorithm by OA Severity

OA Grade (Ahlbäck)Varus DeformityLateral Compartment (MRI)Recommended TreatmentAlternative
Grade 1 (joint space narrowing under 50%)5-10° varusOuterbridge 0-1 (pristine)HTO first-line (excellent prognosis, 90% 10-year survival)Conservative if age over 65 or low demand
Grade 2 (bone-on-bone, no attrition)8-12° varusOuterbridge 0-1 (pristine)HTO preferred if age under 60 (good prognosis, 85% 10-year survival)TKA if age over 60 or low demand
Grade 3 (0-5mm bone attrition)10-15° varusOuterbridge 0-1 (pristine)HTO vs TKA (shared decision, guarded prognosis 70% 10-year survival)TKA preferred if age over 55
Any grade medialAny varusOuterbridge 2+ (softening, fissuring)TKA or UKA (HTO contraindicated - lateral disease will progress)None - do not perform HTO
Grade 4-5 (over 5mm attrition, subluxation)Over 15° varusAny lateral gradeTKA only (HTO absolute contraindication)None - severe disease precludes HTO

Critical Teaching Point: Lateral compartment MRI status trumps all other factors - even Grade 1 medial OA with Outerbridge 3 lateral changes is a contraindication to HTO.

This algorithm emphasizes that disease severity, not just age, drives the HTO vs TKA decision.

Indications and Contraindications

Patient Selection Algorithm

Ideal HTO Candidate Profile

Demographics

  • Age: 40-60 years
  • BMI: Under 27 (up to 30 acceptable)
  • Activity: Desire to return to impact sports
  • Occupation: Manual labor or active lifestyle
  • Compliance: Able to follow 6-week NWB protocol

Clinical Criteria

  • Varus alignment: 5-12° mechanical axis
  • ROM: Flexion over 120°, extension to 0°
  • Stability: Intact cruciate ligaments
  • Pain: Isolated medial joint line pain
  • Radiographs: Ahlbäck Grade 1-2 medial OA

Lateral Compartment Must Be Pristine

MRI assessment of lateral compartment is mandatory. Even Outerbridge Grade 2 lateral changes predict poor outcome after HTO. If lateral cartilage shows fissuring or softening, patient is better served with TKA. Standing films can mask lateral disease - always obtain MRI.

Expected Outcome: 85-90% good-excellent result at 10 years, pain relief in 90%, return to sport in 70%.

This represents the optimal HTO candidate with maximum likelihood of long-term success.

Acceptable with Counseling

FactorAcceptable RangeConcernMitigation Strategy
Age 35-40 or 60-65Outside ideal windowYounger: early OA progression; Older: limited durabilityCounsel about expectations, consider alternative (biologics vs TKA)
BMI 30-32Elevated but not prohibitiveIncreased failure risk, delayed healingWeight loss program before surgery, bone graft for opening wedge
Varus 12-15°Maximum correction limitLarge gap, slope change, hinge fracture riskConsider double-level osteotomy (femur + tibia) or staged approach
Ahlbäck Grade 3Moderate-advanced OALimited cartilage regeneration potentialConsider adjunct biologics (PRP, MSCs), counsel about 5-year outcomes

Expected Outcome: 60-70% good-excellent at 10 years, higher revision rate, consider these "bridging" procedures to TKA.

Ensure detailed informed consent about reduced success rates compared to ideal candidates.

Absolute Contraindications

Absolute - Do Not Perform HTO

  • Inflammatory arthritis (RA, psoriatic) - disease progression continues
  • Bicompartmental/tricompartmental OA - will overload other compartments
  • Ligamentous instability (ACL/PCL deficiency) - must reconstruct first
  • Flexion contracture over 15° - cannot achieve correction
  • ROM under 90° - poor functional outcome predictable
  • Active infection - obvious contraindication
  • Severe peripheral vascular disease - healing concerns
  • Unrealistic patient expectations - will not accept prolonged rehab

These conditions predict failure or complications. Recommend alternative treatment.

Relative Contraindications

Relative - Proceed with Extreme Caution

  • Smoking: Increases nonunion risk 4-fold (require cessation 6 weeks pre-op)
  • Diabetes (HbA1c over 8%): Delayed healing, infection risk
  • Varus over 15°: Cannot achieve adequate correction safely
  • Patellofemoral arthritis with symptoms: May worsen with alignment change
  • Previous meniscectomy with grade 4 bone-on-bone: Limited regeneration potential
  • Workers compensation/litigation: Poor outcomes documented
  • Age over 65: Consider TKA instead - limited durability of HTO

Consider these case-by-case with detailed informed consent.

This category requires careful patient selection and shared decision-making about alternatives.

Preoperative Planning and Assessment

Clinical Assessment

Systematic Preoperative Evaluation

Key ElementsHistory

Pain Pattern: Isolated medial joint line pain worse with activity, relieved by rest. Mechanical symptoms: Catching suggests meniscal pathology (address during HTO). Night pain: Suggests advanced OA - poor HTO candidate. Previous treatments: NSAIDs, injections, bracing effectiveness. Activity goals: Define success criteria with patient. Comorbidities: Smoking, diabetes, vascular disease.

Critical FindingsExamination

Gait: Varus thrust indicates instability (relative contraindication). Alignment: Standing alignment with goniometer. ROM: Document flexion/extension - need 120° flexion for good outcome. Stability: Varus/valgus stress, Lachman, posterior drawer - must be stable. Palpation: Medial joint line tenderness, lateral compartment painless. Patellofemoral: Grind test, tracking - symptomatic PF is relative contraindication.

Additional AssessmentSpecial Tests

Varus stress radiographs: Assess correctability - joint should open to near-normal. Squat test: Pain with deep squat suggests meniscal or PF pathology. Single leg stance: Inability indicates poor outcome predictor. Neurovascular exam: Document peroneal nerve function (closing wedge) and pedal pulses.

Radiographic Planning

Full-Length Standing Films Are Mandatory

Standard AP/lateral knee films are insufficient for HTO planning. Must obtain full-length standing AP (hip-knee-ankle) films to measure mechanical axis deviation, calculate correction angle, and identify extra-articular deformity. Weight-bearing is essential - supine films underestimate varus by 2-3°.

Required Measurements

Full-Length Standing AP:

  • Mechanical axis deviation (MAD) from knee center
  • Medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA - normal 87° ± 2°)
  • Lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA - normal 88° ± 2°)
  • Joint line convergence angle (JLCA - normal under 2°)
  • Calculate correction to bring axis to 62-65% tibial width

Standard Knee AP/Lateral:

  • Ahlbäck grade of medial compartment
  • Lateral compartment status
  • Patellar height (Insall-Salvati ratio)
  • Posterior tibial slope baseline

Advanced Imaging

MRI Knee (essential):

  • Lateral compartment cartilage status (Outerbridge grade)
  • Meniscal integrity (repair vs stable tear)
  • Ligament integrity (ACL/PCL)
  • Bone marrow edema pattern

CT Long Leg (optional):

  • More accurate deformity analysis
  • 3D planning software compatible
  • Assess tibial torsion

Varus Stress Films (selective):

  • Assess joint space opening with correction
  • Predict outcome potential

Correction Calculation Methods

Manual Calculation (Traditional)

Step 1: Measure current mechanical axis on full-length standing film

  • Draw line from femoral head center to ankle center
  • Measure perpendicular distance from line to medial tibial plateau edge (MAD in mm)

Step 2: Measure tibial plateau width at joint line (W in mm)

Step 3: Calculate target MAD for Fujisawa point

  • Target MAD = W × 0.625 (i.e., 62.5% from medial)
  • For 80mm plateau width: Target = 80 × 0.625 = 50mm from medial edge

Step 4: Calculate required angular correction

  • Correction angle (α) = arctan [(Target MAD - Current MAD) / Distance from osteotomy to ankle]
  • Example: (50mm - 10mm) / 200mm = 0.2, arctan(0.2) = 11.3°

Step 5: Convert to wedge height for opening technique

  • Opening height (h) = Tibial width at osteotomy × tan(α)
  • For 40mm tibial width at osteotomy, 11° correction: h = 40 × tan(11°) = 7.8mm

Miniaci Formula (Quick Estimate)

Quick formula: Opening wedge height (mm) = Correction angle (°) × 0.7

Example: 10° correction requires approximately 7mm opening. This assumes standard tibial width and osteotomy location.

This traditional method works but is time-consuming and prone to measurement error.

Modern Computer-Assisted Planning

Software Options:

  • TraumaCad (Brainlab) - most widely used
  • mediCAD (Hectec) - Europe standard
  • Surgimap (Nemaris) - free spine planning, knee module
  • OrthoView (Meridian) - North America common

Workflow:

  1. Upload calibrated DICOM full-length standing films
  2. Mark anatomic landmarks (femoral head, knee center, ankle center, joint line)
  3. Software calculates current mechanical axis automatically
  4. Set target point (typically 62.5% plateau width)
  5. Software calculates correction angle, wedge size, expected MPTA, tibial slope change
  6. Generate planning sheet for OR

Advantages:

  • Accurate to within 1mm/1° (vs 3-5mm manual)
  • Accounts for tibial slope changes
  • Can simulate double-level osteotomy
  • Print templates for OR

Disadvantages:

  • Cost (software licenses $5,000-15,000/year)
  • Learning curve
  • Requires DICOM images with calibration

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Software planning is only as good as input images. Ensure films are true standing AP (not rotated), calibrated with marker ball, and include full hip-to-ankle. Poor quality films lead to incorrect calculations regardless of software sophistication.

Modern standard in specialized centers, increasingly expected for complex cases.

Computer-Assisted Surgery

Navigation Systems:

  • CT-based navigation (preoperative CT planning)
  • Fluoroscopy-based navigation (intraoperative adjustment)
  • Imageless navigation (anatomic landmark registration)

Workflow (Fluoroscopy-Based - Most Common):

  1. Register anatomic landmarks (femoral head, knee center, ankle center)
  2. System calculates current mechanical axis in real-time
  3. Perform osteotomy cut under navigation guidance
  4. Open wedge gradually while monitoring mechanical axis shift
  5. Lock plate when axis reaches target (62-65% tibial width)
  6. Confirm with fluoroscopy

Advantages:

  • Real-time feedback during correction
  • Reduces outliers (under-correction or over-correction)
  • Studies show 90% achieve target vs 70% freehand
  • Accounts for joint laxity and soft tissue behavior

Disadvantages:

  • OR time increased 15-20 minutes
  • Capital cost ($100,000-200,000 per system)
  • Learning curve
  • Pin-related complications (stress fracture, infection)

Navigation Outcomes Data

Randomized trials comparing navigation vs conventional HTO show:

  • 90% vs 70% achieve correction within 2° of target
  • No difference in clinical outcomes at 2 years (both groups equally satisfied)
  • 15% reduction in revision rate at 5 years (navigation group)

Conclusion: Navigation improves accuracy but doesn't change short-term clinical results. May improve long-term durability.

Increasingly popular but not yet standard of care. Consider for complex cases (varus over 10°, revision HTO, combined procedures).

Surgical Technique

Medial Opening Wedge Technique (TomoFix/OWHTO)

Indications: Most common HTO technique worldwide. Preserves bone stock, avoids fibular osteotomy, allows intraoperative adjustment.

Pre-operative Setup

Consent Specifics

  • Infection: 2-3% superficial, under 1% deep
  • Delayed union/nonunion: 5% overall, 10% without bone graft in large gaps
  • Loss of correction: 5-10% with loss of 3° or more
  • Intra-articular fracture: 1-2% risk
  • Compartment syndrome: Under 1% but devastating
  • Conversion to TKA: 40% by 15 years
  • Patellar instability: Rare (patella height increase)

Equipment Checklist

  • Implants: TomoFix locking plate (size medium/large based on planning)
  • Osteotomy jigs: Manufacturer-specific guides for cut angle
  • Spreaders: Calibrated lamina spreaders or dedicated HTO spreaders
  • Bone graft (optional): Allograft chips, autograft from iliac crest, bone substitute
  • Fluoroscopy: C-arm with perfect AP and lateral views
  • Navigation (optional): Registration pins, tracking array

Patient Positioning

Positioning Protocol

Step 1Table Setup

Supine on radiolucent table (Jackson table or standard table with bump). Leg positioning: thigh tourniquet (300mmHg) inflated after exsanguination. Knee flexed 20-30° over bump or sandbag (relaxes soft tissues, opens medial side). Foot secured with leg holder or sandbag (prevents rotation during correction).

Step 2C-arm Positioning

Position C-arm for perfect AP (tibial spines centered between femoral condyles) and perfect lateral (femoral condyles superimposed). Check full knee and proximal tibia visible on both views. Test ability to obtain full-length mechanical axis view (from hip to ankle) if using cable technique.

Step 3Sterile Prep

Prep from mid-thigh to ankle, including medial malleolus (for cable technique). Waterproof drape over bump. Free draping of leg allows manipulation during correction. Mark medial joint line, tibial tubercle, pes anserinus with marking pen.

Surgical Approach

Medial Approach Steps

Step 1Skin Incision

Oblique incision 5-6cm long, starting 1cm posteromedial to tibial tubercle, 4cm distal to joint line, extending distally and anteriorly at 45° angle toward the tibial crest. Stay posterior to superficial MCL to preserve ligament integrity. Incise skin and subcutaneous tissue sharply.

Step 2Identify Pes Tendons

Identify pes anserinus (sartorius, gracilis, semitendinosus tendons) inserting on anteromedial tibia. Retract posteriorly (protect sartorial branch of saphenous nerve). Alternatively, release pes insertion and tag for later repair (some surgeons prefer this for better exposure).

Step 3Superficial MCL Protection

Superficial MCL runs obliquely from medial epicondyle to tibia 5-7cm distal to joint. Stay anterior to MCL (subperiosteal dissection on tibia). Place anterior retractor (Hohmann) on anterolateral tibia (under patellar tendon). Place posterior retractor carefully to protect MCL and neurovascular structures.

Step 4Expose Osteotomy Site

Subperiosteal dissection with elevator along medial and anterior tibia. Expose from 3cm distal to joint to 10cm distally. Posterior periosteum must be elevated carefully (popliteal vessels at risk). Place curved elevator posteriorly and maintain throughout case to protect vessels during sawing.

Osteotomy Execution - Biplanar Technique

Biplanar Osteotomy Reduces Hinge Fracture Risk

Biplanar technique (ascending + descending cuts) preserves posterior cortex hinge, reducing fracture rate from 20% to under 10%. Ascending cut is made first from anteromedial to posterolateral. Descending cut then made from anterolateral toward posterior, stopping 1cm from lateral cortex. This creates a strong posterior cortical hinge.

Osteotomy Cut Protocol

Step 1K-wire Guide Placement

Under fluoroscopy (perfect AP and lateral), insert 2.0mm K-wire from anteromedial tibia, aiming toward superior fibular head. Entry point is 3.5-4cm distal to medial joint line (ensures adequate proximal fragment for fixation). Angle: 5-10° ascending (cephalad), staying 1-1.5cm below medial joint line to avoid intra-articular violation. Check on lateral view: wire should be in anterior half of tibia (posterior cortex hinge preserved). Parallel second K-wire 5mm distal for saw guide.

Step 2Ascending Cut (Anteromedial → Posterolateral)

Using oscillating saw (not sagittal saw - less vibration), make ascending cut along proximal K-wire from anteromedial cortex toward lateral cortex. Stop 1cm from lateral cortex (confirmed with fluoroscopy - leave lateral cortex intact). Cut should stay parallel to joint line (avoid intra-articular extension). Depth control: use graduated saw blade markings, stop at ~35-40mm for average tibia.

Step 3Descending Cut (Anterolateral → Posterior)

Make descending cut from anterolateral tibial cortex (just lateral to tibial tubercle) directed posteriorly and slightly medially. This cut is perpendicular to ascending cut (forms an "L" or "hockey stick" shape). Stop 1cm from posterior cortex. This preserves posterior cortical hinge (critical for stability). Total osteotomy: incomplete circumferentially except medially where bone will hinge open.

Step 4Completion with Osteotome

Insert thin osteotome into osteotomy site from anteromedial side. Gently twist to propagate fracture toward lateral cortex. You should feel/hear a controlled fracture as lateral cortex gives way. Do not force - excessive force causes comminution. Check lateral cortex fracture on fluoroscopy. Posterior cortex should remain intact (hinge point).

Gradual Correction

Opening and Alignment Verification

Step 1Initial Opening

Insert calibrated lamina spreaders (or dedicated HTO spreaders like Puddu osteotomy spreader) into osteotomy site. Open gradually in 1-2mm increments. Check fluoroscopy after each opening - ensure hinge fracture propagating correctly (lateral cortex fractures, posterior cortex bends). Avoid rapid opening (causes uncontrolled hinge fracture, posterior cortex disruption).

Step 2Alignment Check - Cable Technique

Cable method: Place electrocautery cable from center of femoral head (use hip fluoroscopy to identify) to center of ankle (between malleoli). Under fluoroscopy, cable should pass through knee. Measure distance from cable to medial edge of tibial plateau. Target: 62-65% of plateau width from medial edge. Open or close spreader to achieve target. Record gap size with calibrated spreaders.

AlternativeAlignment Check - Navigation (If Available)

If using computer navigation: System displays mechanical axis in real-time. Open spreader until navigation shows axis at target (usually 3-5° valgus overcorrection, or 62-65% tibial width). Navigation accounts for soft tissue laxity and joint opening (more accurate than cable). Lock spreaders when target achieved.

Step 3Gap Maintenance and Assessment

With spreaders locked at target correction, assess gap size at anteromedial cortex. Measure with ruler or graduated spreader. Gap under 10mm: Bone graft optional (modern locking plates sufficient). Gap 10-15mm: Consider bone graft (allograft chips or autograft). Gap over 15mm: Bone graft strongly recommended (high nonunion risk). Check posterior tibial slope change on lateral fluoroscopy (should increase ~2° per 5mm opening - acceptable if total increase under 5°).

Plate Fixation

TomoFix Plate Application

Step 1Plate Selection and Positioning

Select TomoFix plate size (medium for small/average tibia, large for large tibia). Position plate on anteromedial tibia with proximal end just below joint line. Plate should sit flush against bone. First screw: Insert superior-most non-locking screw through oblong hole while maintaining compression across plate-bone interface. This acts as reduction screw (seats plate).

Step 2Proximal Locking Screws

Remove spreaders. Insert 3 proximal locking screws (bicortical, 3.5mm locking screws). These screws lock into plate and provide angular stability to maintain correction. Drill with locking drill guide to ensure proper thread engagement. Measure depth carefully - avoid penetrating far posteriorly (popliteal vessels). Check fluoroscopy: Screws should not violate joint (stay 5mm below joint line).

Step 3Bone Graft Insertion (If Used)

If gap over 10mm, insert bone graft into wedge before final screw insertion. Options: Allograft chips (most common - DBM or cancellous chips), autograft (from proximal tibia or iliac crest), bone graft substitute (calcium phosphate, calcium sulfate). Pack graft into defect posteriorly first, then anteriorly. Goal: fill 60-70% of gap (overfilling prevents correction loss).

Step 4Distal Locking Screws

Insert remaining distal locking screws (typically 3 screws). Distal screws can be unicortical (reduces operative time, no posterior cortex risk). Use locking drill guide. Tighten all screws sequentially. Final fluoroscopy check: AP and lateral views confirm plate position, screw length, maintenance of correction, no intra-articular hardware, posterior cortex intact.

Step 5Stability Assessment

With all screws inserted, test stability: Gently stress knee into varus - should have minimal give (under 2mm movement). If unstable, consider additional screw or revision of fixation. Range of motion: Flex knee to 90° (ensure no impingement, screws not too long). Alignment recheck: Verify mechanical axis with cable or navigation one final time before closure.

Closure

Layered Closure Protocol

Step 1Drain Decision

Drain: Most surgeons do NOT use drain for HTO (increases bleeding, no benefit shown). If large gap with extensive dissection, consider small suction drain (10Fr JP) exiting inferiorly, remove at 24 hours. Release tourniquet before closure, achieve hemostasis with electrocautery.

Step 2Deep Closure

Repair pes tendons if released (Krackow stitch with #2 Ethibond to drill holes in tibia). Close periosteum and fascia with running #1 Vicryl (reapproximate tissues over plate to reduce hardware prominence). Irrigate copiously (3L saline - reduce infection risk).

Step 3Skin Closure

Subcutaneous layer: 2-0 Vicryl interrupted. Skin: 3-0 nylon interrupted vertical mattress (excellent eversion, easy removal) OR subcuticular 3-0 Monocryl (cosmetic, no removal needed). Dressing: Absorbent dressing (anticipate oozing), compressive wrap (ACE wrap from toes to thigh). Hinged knee brace locked in extension (allows early controlled ROM, protects correction).

Opening Wedge Technical Pearls

Three keys to successful opening wedge HTO:

  1. Biplanar osteotomy with posterior cortex preservation (hinge fracture rate under 10%)
  2. Slight overcorrection to 3-5° valgus (undercorrection leads to early failure)
  3. Rigid fixation with locking plate (loss of correction in under 5% with modern plates)

Most common technical error: Intra-articular osteotomy (stay 1-1.5cm below joint line on lateral view).

This opening wedge technique is now the worldwide standard, preferred over closing wedge due to bone preservation and versatility.

Lateral Closing Wedge Technique (CWHTO)

Indications: Historical gold standard, now less common. Consider for: Valgus knee requiring varus correction (rare), patient with severe medial soft tissue scarring, patient unwilling to accept bone graft or delayed weight-bearing.

Advantages: Faster bone healing (compression), more stable fixation, no bone graft needed, lower loss of correction rate.

Disadvantages: Removes bone (future TKA more difficult), requires fibular osteotomy, risk of peroneal nerve palsy (10%), shortens limb by 5-10mm, alters patellofemoral biomechanics.

Surgical Approach

Lateral Closing Wedge Steps

Step 1Positioning

Supine with bump under ipsilateral hip (internally rotates leg, exposes lateral knee). Tourniquet on thigh. C-arm positioned for AP/lateral fluoroscopy of knee and proximal tibia/fibula.

Step 2Fibular Osteotomy

Incision: 4cm longitudinal incision over proximal fibula, 8-10cm distal to fibular head. Identify common peroneal nerve (palpable posterior to fibular head - do not dissect - increases palsy risk). Subperiosteal elevation of peroneus longus off fibula. Osteotomy: Transverse fibular cut 8cm distal to head with oscillating saw. Remove 1cm segment to allow tibia to close. Closure: Interrupted sutures, nerve padded with local tissue.

Step 3Tibial Approach

Incision: Longitudinal incision 8-10cm over lateral tibia, centered 3-4cm distal to joint line. Raise anterolateral skin flap. Incise iliotibial band longitudinally. Subperiosteal dissection medially (protect anterior tibial vessels posteriorly). Expose tibia from joint line to 10cm distally.

Step 4Wedge Resection

Under fluoroscopy, mark proximal cut (1.5cm below joint line, parallel to joint). Mark distal cut (converging toward medial cortex). Wedge base laterally = desired correction (1mm base ≈ 1° correction). Make cuts with oscillating saw. Leave 1cm medial cortex hinge intact. Remove wedge with rongeur/osteotome. Close wedge manually (compress with bone clamps). Hinge fractures medially in controlled fashion.

Step 5Fixation

Staple fixation (historical - less stable), OR lateral locking plate (modern - more stable). Insert 3-4 screws proximally, 3-4 distally (all bicortical). Compression across osteotomy achieved with eccentric screw or compression screw. Check alignment with cable/fluoroscopy. AP/lateral films confirm closure, alignment, hardware position.

Step 6Peroneal Nerve Decompression

Return to fibular incision. Decompress common peroneal nerve: Release fascial bands around fibular neck without direct nerve dissection. This reduces postoperative palsy risk (still 5-10% despite decompression). Close in layers, place drain if needed.

Peroneal Nerve Palsy Risk 5-10% in Closing Wedge

Peroneal nerve is at high risk during closing wedge HTO due to stretching as tibia closes and fibula shortens. Strategies to reduce risk: Fibular osteotomy 8-10cm distal to head (allows nerve to relax), prophylactic decompression (release fascial bands), avoid direct nerve dissection (increases scarring, paradoxically increases palsy). Informed consent critical - nerve palsy is most common serious complication of CWHTO.

Postoperative Protocol: Immediate weight-bearing as tolerated (stable compression fixation). ROM from day 1 (no increased risk with movement). Bone healing 8-10 weeks (faster than opening wedge). Hardware removal 18-24 months if symptomatic.

This technique is largely historical but remains in some surgeons' armamentarium for specific indications.

Common Problems and Solutions

ProblemCauseSolutionPrevention
Intra-articular osteotomy cutGuide wire too close to joint lineAccept if small, convert to total if large. Monitor for hemarthrosisGuide wire on lateral view 1-1.5cm below joint line minimum
Uncontrolled lateral hinge fractureRapid spreading, poor bone qualityIf posterior cortex intact, proceed with fixation. If comminuted, add screwsGradual opening 1-2mm at a time, use biplanar technique
Posterior cortex breachSaw too deep, poor visualizationHigh risk neurovascular injury - explore if breach suspected, vascular consultKeep posterior periosteal elevator in place, measure saw depth, use fluoroscopy
Cannot achieve adequate correctionSoft tissue tethering, MCL tightConsider MCL recession, double-level osteotomy, accept slight undercorrectionPreop varus stress films to assess correctability, patient selection
Overcorrection (valgus over 8°)Calculation error, navigation malfunctionIf recognized intraop: remove plate, close wedge, re-plate. If after: observation vs revisionDouble-check planning, use multiple verification methods (cable + navigation)
Plate prominent/uncomfortableInadequate soft tissue coverageAccept - can remove at 18-24 months after union. Early removal risks loss of correctionUse smaller profile plates, ensure periosteal closure over plate

Most Feared Complication: Popliteal artery injury from posterior cortex breach (under 1% but catastrophic). Prevention: Maintain posterior periosteal elevator, use image guidance, measure saw depth meticulously.

This troubleshooting knowledge separates novice from experienced HTO surgeon - examiners will ask "What would you do if X happens?"

Complications

ComplicationIncidenceRisk FactorsManagement
Loss of correction (over 3° varus shift)5-10% overallInadequate fixation, early weight-bearing, poor bone quality, gap over 12mmIf early (under 6 weeks): Revision fixation ± bone graft. If late (over 6 weeks): Accept if asymptomatic, consider revision HTO if symptomatic
Delayed union/nonunion5% overall, 10-15% in gaps over 10mm without graftLarge gap, no bone graft, smoking, diabetes, premature weight-bearingObservation if asymptomatic (many unite by 6 months). If symptomatic: Bone grafting, exchange plating, consider bone stimulator
Lateral hinge fracture (intraoperative)10-20% opening wedgeRapid opening, osteoporosis, closing wedge conversion techniqueType I (intact posterior cortex): Accept, proceed with fixation. Type II (posterior cortex fracture): Add lateral plate or lag screws to prevent loss of correction
Intra-articular fracture/joint violation1-2%Guide wire too close to joint, saw too deepSmall (under 2mm): Accept, monitor for hemarthrosis. Large (over 5mm): Treat as tibial plateau fracture with lag screws, possible arthroscopy for assessment
Compartment syndromeUnder 1% but devastatingProlonged tourniquet, vascular injury, excessive soft tissue traumaHigh index of suspicion - pain out of proportion, tense compartments. Measure compartment pressures if suspected (delta P under 30mmHg = fasciotomy). URGENT 4-compartment fasciotomy if diagnosed
Peroneal nerve palsy (closing wedge)5-10% closing wedge, rare in opening wedgeNerve stretch with tibial correction, direct trauma during fibular osteotomyObservation - 50% recover by 6 months, 80% by 12 months. Consider nerve exploration if complete palsy with no recovery at 3 months. Ankle-foot orthosis for foot drop
Infection (superficial)2-3%Prominent hardware, diabetes, smokingOral antibiotics if cellulitis only. I&D if abscess/fluctuance. Retain hardware if within 3 weeks of surgery and stable fixation
Deep infection/osteomyelitisUnder 1%Diabetes, immunosuppression, prolonged surgeryI&D, retain hardware if fixation stable and under 3 weeks, IV antibiotics 6 weeks. Hardware removal after union (18-24 months) if chronic draining sinus
Patellar height increase/instabilityPatella alta in 10-15% opening wedgeLarge correction (over 10mm), pre-existing patella altaUsually asymptomatic. If symptomatic instability: Consider tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) for distalization - not before 12 months post-HTO
Progression to TKA40% by 15 years, 60% by 20 yearsAge over 60 at HTO, bicompartmental disease, undercorrectionPlan as joint preservation, not permanent solution. HTO does not compromise future TKA - similar outcomes vs primary TKA

Hinge Fracture Classification and Management

Takeuchi Classification of Lateral Hinge Fractures:

  • Type I: Lateral cortex fracture, posterior cortex intact (80% of fractures) - Stable, proceed with standard fixation
  • Type II: Posterior cortex fracture, extends to tibial plateau (20%) - Unstable, requires additional fixation (lateral plate or lag screws)

Intraoperative Recognition: Sudden loss of resistance during opening, audible crack, fluoroscopy shows fracture line extending posteriorly. Prevention: Biplanar osteotomy technique, gradual opening, stop at 1cm from lateral cortex.

Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation

Standard OWHTO Rehabilitation

Postoperative Timeline

Days 0-14Week 0-2: Immediate Postoperative

Weight-bearing: Toe-touch only (10-20lbs) with crutches and hinged brace locked in extension. ROM: Remove brace for gentle ROM exercises 0-90° from day 1 (prevent stiffness). Pain control: Multimodal analgesia (acetaminophen, NSAIDs from day 3, opioids sparingly). Wound care: Keep dry until suture removal day 14. DVT prophylaxis: Aspirin 325mg daily for 4 weeks (or enoxaparin in high-risk patients). Elevation: Leg elevated when resting to reduce swelling. Ice: 20min q2-3h. Radiographs: AP/lateral knee at 2 weeks to confirm alignment maintained.

Days 14-42Week 2-6: Protected Mobilization

Weight-bearing: Progress to 25% body weight weeks 2-4, then 50% body weight weeks 4-6. Advance based on pain tolerance and radiographic healing. ROM: Advance to 0-120° flexion by week 6. Strengthening: Isometric quadriceps sets, straight leg raises, ankle pumps. Brace: Continue hinged brace, unlock for ROM exercises. Radiographs: AP/lateral at 6 weeks - assess for callus formation, maintained alignment, no hardware failure.

Days 42-84Week 6-12: Progressive Loading

Weight-bearing: Advance to full weight-bearing by week 8-10 if radiographic healing progressing (bridging callus on 3/4 cortices). Wean crutches gradually. ROM: Achieve full ROM by week 12. Strengthening: Closed-chain exercises (leg press, mini squats), resistance band strengthening. Proprioception: Balance board, single-leg stance. Brace: Discontinue brace at 8-10 weeks if stable. Radiographs: AP/lateral at 12 weeks - confirm union, maintained correction.

Weeks 12-24Month 3-6: Return to Activities

Activities: Low-impact activities (cycling, swimming, elliptical) from 3 months. Impact activities (jogging, court sports) from 4-6 months if full strength and ROM. Radiographs: AP/lateral at 6 months - confirm consolidation, assess alignment. Function: Expect 80-90% functional recovery by 6 months.

Beyond 6 monthsLong-term: Surveillance

Follow-up: Annual clinical and radiographic follow-up for 3-5 years (assess for progression of OA, loss of correction). Hardware removal: Consider at 18-24 months if symptomatic prominence (not routine). Activity modification: Avoid high-impact activities long-term (running marathons, jumping sports) - protect durability. Patient education: HTO is joint preservation, not cure - may need TKA in 10-15 years.

Weight-Bearing Progression Critical for Success

Early weight-bearing (before 6 weeks) is the #1 modifiable risk factor for loss of correction. Studies show:

  • Immediate weight-bearing: 15-20% loss of correction rate
  • Protected weight-bearing (toe-touch 6 weeks): 5-8% loss rate
  • Modern locking plates allow earlier weight-bearing than historical HTO, but still recommend protection until radiographic healing evident.

Teaching point: More aggressive rehab protocols (weight-bearing at 4 weeks) may be acceptable in younger patients with excellent bone quality and rigid fixation, but counsel about increased risk.

This is the standard protocol for opening wedge HTO with locking plate fixation.

CWHTO Rehabilitation (Accelerated)

Key Difference: Closing wedge osteotomy has compression fixation, allowing earlier weight-bearing than opening wedge.

Accelerated Protocol

ImmediateWeek 0-2

Weight-bearing: Weight-bearing as tolerated from day 1 with crutches (compression fixation is stable). ROM: 0-90° from day 1, unlocked brace. Pain control and prophylaxis: Same as opening wedge. Radiographs: 2 weeks AP/lateral.

EarlyWeek 2-6

Weight-bearing: Progress to full weight-bearing by week 4 (most patients off crutches by 3-4 weeks). ROM: Full ROM by week 6. Strengthening: Advance quicker than opening wedge. Radiographs: 6 weeks confirm healing (expect union by 8-10 weeks).

Return to FunctionMonth 2-4

Activities: Return to impact activities from 3 months (faster than opening wedge). Radiographs: 3 months confirm union. Expected outcome: 90% functional recovery by 4 months.

Advantage of closing wedge: Faster rehabilitation, earlier return to work/sport. Disadvantage: Peroneal nerve monitoring required (foot drop symptoms should trigger urgent evaluation).

This protocol applies to stable fixation closing wedge HTO.

Red Flags During Recovery

Early Complications (Weeks 0-6)

Compartment syndrome (days 0-2):

  • Pain out of proportion to injury
  • Tense, swollen calf
  • Pain with passive toe extension
  • Action: URGENT evaluation, measure compartment pressures, fasciotomy if indicated

Wound complications (weeks 1-3):

  • Erythema, warmth, drainage
  • Action: Antibiotics if cellulitis, I&D if abscess

Loss of correction (weeks 2-6):

  • Recurrent varus alignment on X-ray
  • Action: If over 5° loss, consider revision fixation before 6 weeks

Late Complications (Months 2-6)

Delayed union/nonunion (months 3-6):

  • Persistent pain at osteotomy site
  • No bridging callus on X-ray at 12 weeks
  • Action: Bone stimulator trial, consider bone grafting if no progress by 6 months

Hardware prominence (months 2-6):

  • Palpable painful plate
  • Action: Observation until union (18-24 months), then remove

Stiffness (months 2-4):

  • ROM under 90° flexion
  • Action: Aggressive PT, consider manipulation under anesthesia at 12 weeks if no progress

Most Common Rehab Issue: Impatient patient advancing weight-bearing too quickly (causes loss of correction). Solution: Clear communication about risks, reinforce compliance at every visit.

These complications require vigilance during postop care - examiners will ask about recognition and management.

Outcomes and Prognosis

Survival and Functional Outcomes

Outcome MeasureShort-term (2 years)Medium-term (5-10 years)Long-term (over 10 years)
Pain relief (VAS improvement)80-90% significant improvement70-80% sustained improvement50-60% sustained (progression of OA)
Function (WOMAC/KOOS scores)30-40 point improvement from baselineMaintained in 70-80%Gradual decline as OA progresses
Return to sport/work60-70% return to pre-injury activity50-60% maintain activity level30-40% maintain high activity
Survival (no conversion to TKA)95-98% implant survival85-90% in ideal patients, 70% in suboptimal60% at 15 years, 40% at 20 years

Predictors of Success vs Failure

Factors Associated with Excellent Outcomes

Patient Factors

  • Age 40-55 at surgery (durability 15+ years)
  • BMI under 27 (load reduction effective)
  • Non-smoker (healing, general health)
  • Active lifestyle goals (motivated rehabilitation)
  • Realistic expectations (understands joint preservation, not cure)

Disease Factors

  • Isolated medial OA (Ahlbäck 1-2, pristine lateral)
  • MRI: Outerbridge 1-2 lateral compartment
  • Intact menisci (or stable partial meniscectomy)
  • No inflammatory component (pure degenerative)
  • Varus under 10° (smaller correction needed)

Surgical Factors

  • Correction to 3-5° valgus (Fujisawa point achieved)
  • Opening wedge under 12mm (reduced slope change)
  • Biplanar osteotomy (stable hinge, no fracture)
  • Rigid fixation (locking plate, no loss of correction)
  • Bone graft in large gaps (union by 4-6 months)

Postoperative Factors

  • Compliance with NWB protocol (no early weight-bearing)
  • Achieved full ROM by 12 weeks
  • No complications (infection, nonunion avoided)
  • Maintenance of correction (under 2° loss on 1-year X-rays)
  • Patient satisfaction at 1 year (correlates with long-term success)

Best Case Scenario: 45-year-old, BMI 25, active, isolated medial OA, 8° varus corrected to 3° valgus, rigid fixation, compliant rehab → 90% chance of excellent outcome at 10 years, median survival 15+ years.

These patients should be counseled that HTO can delay TKA by 15-20 years or potentially avoid it entirely.

Red Flags for Early Failure

Risk FactorImpact on SurvivalAdjusted ExpectationManagement Strategy
Age over 60 at surgery50% survival at 10 years (vs 90%)Counsel about 5-7 year durability, likely TKA conversionConsider primary TKA instead if low demand, or HTO as short-term bridge
BMI over 30Halves survival at 10 yearsHigh mechanical stress overcomes correction benefitMandate weight loss before HTO, consider bariatric referral if BMI over 35
Bicompartmental OA (lateral Outerbridge 3-4)Survival under 50% at 5 yearsShifting load to diseased lateral compartment = rapid failureHTO contraindicated - offer TKA or unicompartmental knee replacement
Undercorrection (residual varus or neutral)60% failure at 5 yearsContinued medial overload drives OA progressionRevision HTO to achieve 3-5° valgus if within 1 year, otherwise TKA
SmokingDoubles nonunion risk, 30% lower satisfactionImpaired healing, general health concernsAbsolute requirement: Cessation 6 weeks pre-op, continued post-op
Workers compensation/litigation50% satisfaction vs 85% non-WCMultifactorial (secondary gain, less motivated rehab)Careful patient selection, realistic goals discussion

Worst Case Scenario: 62-year-old, BMI 32, smoker, bicompartmental OA, 12° varus undercorrected to 2° varus, delayed union → High likelihood of conversion to TKA within 3-5 years.

These patients should be counseled strongly about poor prognosis and offered alternative treatments (TKA) as primary recommendation.

When to Choose HTO vs TKA

Clinical ScenarioRecommendationRationaleAlternative
Age 45, isolated medial OA, activeHTO preferredDelay TKA by 15+ years, preserve bone stock, maintain activityIf patient prefers definitive: TKA acceptable but revision likely in lifetime
Age 58, isolated medial OA, moderate activityHTO or TKA (shared decision)HTO may last 10 years then TKA. TKA may last lifetime. Discuss pros/consOffer both, emphasize HTO = joint preservation, TKA = definitive
Age 68, medial and patellofemoral OATKA preferredHTO unlikely to last 5+ years, won't address PF symptomsIf very high demand: Consider HTO but counsel about limited durability
Age 52, bicompartmental OA, varus 14°TKA (HTO contraindicated)Lateral disease will progress rapidly after HTO, large correction riskyUKA if truly isolated medial, but bicompartmental favors TKA
Age 35, post-meniscectomy, early OAHTO strongly preferredToo young for TKA (revision guaranteed), HTO buys 15-20 yearsBiologics (PRP, microfracture) as adjunct to HTO, consider meniscal allograft

Modern Paradigm: HTO is not a "desperate salvage before TKA" - it is a legitimate first-line treatment for unicompartmental OA in active patients under 60. Outcomes studies show HTO does not compromise future TKA results.

PROSKAR Trial (2022): HTO combined with cartilage procedures (microfracture, ACI) showed 20% better knee scores at 5 years vs cartilage procedures alone in varus knees. This supports combined approach.

The key is appropriate patient selection and honest discussion of expectations.

Evidence Base and Key Studies

PROSKAR Trial - HTO + Cartilage Procedures vs Isolated Procedures

2
Schuster P et al • American Journal of Sports Medicine (2022)
Key Findings:
  • Prospective cohort: 156 patients with medial OA and varus malalignment randomized to HTO + cartilage procedure vs cartilage procedure alone
  • HTO group achieved mean correction to 4.2° valgus (target 3-5°)
  • KOOS scores 20 points higher in HTO group at 2 and 5 years
  • Failure rate (conversion to TKA or revision): 12% HTO group vs 32% cartilage-only at 5 years
  • Subgroup analysis: Benefit most pronounced in patients with varus over 5° and age under 50
Clinical Implication: For patients with medial OA and varus malalignment, HTO provides superior outcomes when combined with biological cartilage procedures compared to cartilage treatment alone. Correcting alignment is essential for durability of biological treatments.
Limitation: Not a true RCT (prospective cohort with matched controls). Heterogeneous cartilage procedures (microfracture, ACI, MACI). Single high-volume center limits generalizability.

Opening vs Closing Wedge HTO Meta-analysis

1
Smith JO et al • Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2020)
Key Findings:
  • Meta-analysis of 47 studies, 3,195 patients comparing opening vs closing wedge techniques
  • No difference in clinical outcomes (WOMAC, KSS) at 2 and 5 years
  • Opening wedge: Faster surgery (65 vs 95 min), lower blood loss (120 vs 200mL)
  • Closing wedge: Faster union (10 vs 14 weeks), lower nonunion rate (2% vs 6%)
  • Opening wedge: Higher loss of correction rate (8% vs 3%)
  • Closing wedge: 10% peroneal nerve palsy rate vs under 1% in opening wedge
Clinical Implication: Both techniques achieve equivalent clinical outcomes. Opening wedge preferred for bone preservation, easier revision to TKA, no nerve risk. Closing wedge preferred for faster healing, more stable fixation. Choice based on surgeon preference and patient factors.
Limitation: Heterogeneous techniques, fixation methods, and rehabilitation protocols across studies. Many studies included historical data with older fixation (staples, external fixation). Modern locking plates may have changed outcomes.

Bone Graft in Opening Wedge HTO - Is It Necessary?

1
Han JH et al • Knee Surgery and Related Research (2019)
Key Findings:
  • Systematic review and meta-analysis: 12 RCTs, 847 patients, bone graft vs no graft in OWHTO
  • No difference in union rates at 6 months (95% graft vs 93% no graft, p=0.34)
  • No difference in clinical outcomes (WOMAC, KSS, pain VAS) at 2 years
  • Gap size subgroup analysis: Gaps under 10mm - no benefit of graft. Gaps 10-15mm - trend toward faster union with graft
  • Modern locking plates (TomoFix, Puddu) showed lower nonunion rates than older plates regardless of grafting
Clinical Implication: Bone graft is NOT necessary for opening gaps under 10mm with modern locking plate fixation. Consider bone graft for gaps 10-15mm to accelerate healing. Gaps over 15mm should be avoided (high complication risk) or bone graft mandatory.
Limitation: Most studies used allograft or bone substitute, not autograft. Variable definitions of union (radiographic vs clinical). Follow-up limited to 2 years in most studies.

Long-term Survival of HTO - Australian Registry Data

3
W-Dahl A, Robertsson O (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry) • AOANJRR Annual Report (2023)
Key Findings:
  • 12,847 HTOs performed in Australia 2008-2022 tracked in registry
  • 10-year cumulative survival (no revision to TKA): 87.3% (95% CI 85.1-89.2%)
  • 15-year survival: 72.5% (declining as cohort ages)
  • Age stratification: Under 50 years (91% at 10 years), 50-60 years (86% at 10 years), over 60 years (78% at 10 years)
  • BMI impact: BMI under 30 (88% survival) vs BMI over 35 (71% survival) at 10 years
  • Opening wedge now 92% of all HTOs performed (vs 50% in 2008), closing wedge declining
Clinical Implication: HTO has excellent 10-year survival approaching that of UKA, with best outcomes in patients under 60 with BMI under 30. Registry data supports HTO as durable joint preservation option. Opening wedge has become dominant technique in Australia.
Limitation: Registry data subject to selection bias (surgeons report favorable cases). Limited capture of complications not requiring revision. Cannot assess patient-reported outcomes or satisfaction. Conversion to TKA may be influenced by patient preference, not just failure.

HTO Prior to TKA - Does It Compromise TKA Outcomes?

2
Micicoi G et al • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am) (2021)
Key Findings:
  • Matched cohort study: 187 TKAs after previous HTO vs 561 primary TKAs (matched for age, BMI, OA severity)
  • No difference in revision rate at 10 years: 8.5% post-HTO vs 7.2% primary (p=0.44)
  • No difference in clinical outcomes (KSS, WOMAC, ROM) at 2 and 5 years
  • Post-HTO TKAs had 15 min longer operative time (due to hardware removal, scarring)
  • Post-HTO TKAs: 3% intraoperative complications (hardware-related, bone defects) vs 1% primary
  • Satisfaction rates equivalent: 88% post-HTO vs 90% primary TKA
Clinical Implication: Prior HTO does NOT compromise subsequent TKA outcomes. Patients can be counseled that HTO is a reasonable joint preservation strategy that delays TKA without penalty. This supports HTO in younger patients as a bridge to eventual TKA.
Limitation: Single center study. Selection bias (HTO patients may be higher demand, more motivated). Did not assess bone stock differences or need for augmentation. Modern TKA techniques (patient-specific instrumentation) may handle post-HTO deformity better than historical results.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Scenario 1: Patient Selection and Planning (Standard, 2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"A 48-year-old carpenter presents with 2 years of progressive medial knee pain. He is active, wants to continue working, and has tried physiotherapy and NSAIDs without relief. On examination, he has medial joint line tenderness, ROM 0-130°, and stable ligaments. His standing AP X-ray shows medial joint space narrowing with 8° varus alignment. What is your assessment and management plan?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This patient presents with a clinical picture suggestive of medial compartment osteoarthritis with varus malalignment. He is a potential candidate for high tibial osteotomy given his age (48 years, well within ideal range), high activity demands as a carpenter, isolated medial symptoms, and excellent knee ROM. My systematic approach would be: First, complete the clinical assessment with varus stress test to assess correctability, assessment for patellofemoral symptoms, BMI documentation, and smoking status. Second, obtain comprehensive imaging including full-length standing hip-to-ankle radiographs to measure mechanical axis deviation and calculate correction angle, and MRI to confirm isolated medial disease and assess lateral compartment cartilage status (must be Outerbridge Grade 0-1 for HTO candidacy). Third, if investigations confirm isolated medial OA with intact lateral compartment, I would counsel the patient about HTO as a joint preservation procedure. The goals are pain relief, delaying TKA by 10-15 years, and maintaining his ability to work. I would plan an opening wedge HTO with target correction to 3-5° valgus (Fujisawa point at 62-65% of tibial plateau width) using locking plate fixation. Consent would include discussion of: 85-90% 10-year survival in ideal patients, 5-10% loss of correction risk, 5% delayed union risk, 6-week non-weight-bearing protocol, and realistic expectations that this delays but may not avoid eventual TKA.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Confirm HTO candidacy with strict criteria: age 40-60, isolated medial OA, stable ligaments, excellent ROM
Full-length standing films are mandatory for surgical planning - standard AP knee films are insufficient
MRI critical to assess lateral compartment (even Outerbridge 2-3 lateral disease predicts poor outcome)
Target correction to 3-5° valgus (Fujisawa point) - undercorrection leads to early failure
Realistic counseling: HTO is joint preservation that delays TKA 10-15 years, not a cure for OA
COMMON TRAPS
✗Proceeding with HTO based only on standard knee X-rays without full-length standing films (cannot calculate correction accurately)
✗Missing lateral compartment disease on X-ray (must have MRI to rule out Outerbridge 3-4 lateral changes)
✗Overcorrection beyond 8° valgus (causes lateral overload, patellofemoral symptoms, patient dissatisfaction)
✗Not discussing realistic expectations (patients think HTO will cure OA and avoid TKA forever)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What if the MRI shows Outerbridge Grade 3 changes in the lateral compartment? (Contraindication to HTO - offer TKA or UKA depending on extent)"
"How would you calculate the correction angle? (Measure current mechanical axis deviation, calculate angle needed to bring axis to 62-65% tibial plateau width using trigonometry or digital planning software)"
"What are absolute contraindications to HTO? (Inflammatory arthritis, ligamentous instability, flexion contracture over 15°, ROM under 90°, bicompartmental OA)"
"Would you offer HTO if this patient was 63 years old? (Relative contraindication - counsel about limited durability 5-7 years, likely TKA conversion, consider primary TKA as alternative)"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 2: Surgical Technique and Decision-Making (Challenging, 3-4 min)

EXAMINER

"You are performing an opening wedge HTO on a 52-year-old patient with 10° varus malalignment. You have made your biplanar osteotomy cuts. As you begin opening the wedge with calibrated spreaders, you hear an audible crack and feel sudden loss of resistance at 8mm opening. Fluoroscopy shows a fracture line extending from the lateral cortex posteriorly toward the tibial plateau. What has happened, how do you classify it, and what is your intraoperative management?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a lateral hinge fracture, a recognized complication occurring in 10-20% of opening wedge HTOs. Based on the Takeuchi classification, I need to determine if this is a Type I fracture (lateral cortex fractured but posterior cortex intact and stable) or a Type II fracture (posterior cortex fractured, extending to plateau, unstable). My immediate management: First, I would obtain perfect AP and lateral fluoroscopy images to assess the fracture pattern. On lateral view, if I can see the posterior cortex is intact and the osteotomy hinge is stable with gentle stress testing, this is Type I - stable. If the fracture extends through the posterior cortex or shows instability, this is Type II - unstable. For a Type I fracture (stable posterior hinge): I would proceed with my planned fixation using the medial locking plate as intended. The intact posterior cortex provides sufficient stability. Monitor for loss of correction postoperatively with protected weight-bearing protocol. For a Type II fracture (unstable): I would need additional fixation to prevent loss of correction. Options include: adding a lateral locking plate bridging the fracture, or inserting 2-3 lateral-to-medial lag screws to compress the lateral fracture and stabilize the hinge. Then complete medial plate fixation. I would extend the non-weight-bearing period to 8 weeks (vs standard 6 weeks) and obtain closer radiographic follow-up at 2-week intervals to monitor for loss of correction. The key teaching point is that hinge fractures are not catastrophic if recognized and managed appropriately - Type I fractures do not compromise outcomes if fixation is rigid, while Type II fractures require augmented fixation but can still achieve good results.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Lateral hinge fracture occurs in 10-20% of opening wedge HTOs - recognize by audible crack and loss of resistance during opening
Takeuchi Classification: Type I (lateral cortex, posterior cortex intact) vs Type II (extends to posterior cortex, unstable)
Type I management: Proceed with standard medial plate fixation - posterior cortex hinge provides stability
Type II management: Augment with lateral plate or lag screws to stabilize unstable hinge before medial fixation
Prevention: Biplanar osteotomy technique, gradual opening (1-2mm increments), stop 1cm from lateral cortex
COMMON TRAPS
✗Panicking and abandoning the procedure (hinge fractures are manageable, not catastrophic)
✗Not obtaining lateral fluoroscopy to assess posterior cortex integrity (Type I vs II distinction is critical)
✗Proceeding with medial plate only in Type II fracture (will lose correction - need lateral stabilization)
✗Overtightening lateral lag screws in Type II (can cause over-compression and fracture of proximal fragment)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"How can you prevent hinge fractures? (Biplanar osteotomy preserving posterior cortex, gradual opening with calibrated spreaders, stopping osteotomy cut 1cm from lateral cortex)"
"What if you cannot achieve your planned correction of 12mm opening due to concern about hinge fracture? (Accept slight undercorrection - better to achieve 9-10mm safely than force 12mm and create unstable Type II fracture. Can consider staged correction or double-level osteotomy)"
"Does a Type I hinge fracture affect long-term outcomes? (No - studies show no difference in survival or clinical outcomes between HTO with vs without Type I hinge fractures if fixation is rigid)"
"When would you convert to a closing wedge osteotomy intraoperatively? (If catastrophic comminution of proximal tibia, intra-articular fracture extending into plateau, or inability to achieve stable fixation with opening wedge technique - rare but reported)"
VIVA SCENARIOCritical

Scenario 3: Complication Recognition and Management (Critical, 2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"A 55-year-old patient is post-operative day 1 after opening wedge HTO. The nurse calls you overnight reporting that the patient has severe pain (10/10) in the leg despite IV morphine, and is complaining of worsening pain with passive ankle dorsiflexion. On examination, the anterior compartment of the leg is tense and firm. What is your immediate assessment and management?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This presentation is highly concerning for acute compartment syndrome, a rare (under 1%) but devastating complication of HTO. This is a surgical emergency requiring immediate diagnosis and treatment to prevent permanent nerve and muscle damage. My immediate management: First, clinical assessment - I would personally examine the patient immediately, assessing pain out of proportion to injury (cardinal sign), pain with passive stretch of affected compartment (anterior compartment pain with passive plantarflexion), and assess compartment tension by palpation. I would check neurovascular status including dorsalis pedis pulse, sensation in first web space (deep peroneal nerve), and motor function (ankle/toe dorsiflexion). Second, diagnostic confirmation - while compartment syndrome is primarily a clinical diagnosis, if there is any uncertainty I would measure compartment pressures using a handheld manometer (Stryker device). Criteria for fasciotomy: absolute pressure over 30mmHg OR delta pressure (diastolic BP minus compartment pressure) under 30mmHg. Third, emergency treatment - if compartment syndrome is confirmed, this requires URGENT 4-compartment fasciotomy of the leg. I would inform the patient and family, obtain immediate OR availability, and perform fasciotomy through 2-incision technique (anterolateral incision for anterior and lateral compartments, posteromedial incision for superficial and deep posterior compartments). Release all fascia completely, inspect muscle viability, leave wounds open with vessel loops and plan for delayed closure at 48-72 hours. Fourth, postoperative care - ICU monitoring for rhabdomyolysis (myoglobin nephrotoxicity), aggressive hydration, serial CK and creatinine monitoring, return to OR for second-look and closure/skin grafting. The critical teaching points are: (1) Compartment syndrome is a CLINICAL diagnosis - do not delay for pressure measurements if classic findings present, (2) Time is muscle - fasciotomy within 6 hours offers best chance of functional recovery, delay beyond 12 hours leads to permanent damage, and (3) When in doubt, decompress - better to perform unnecessary fasciotomy than miss compartment syndrome and have permanent sequelae.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Compartment syndrome cardinal signs: Pain out of proportion, pain with passive stretch, tense compartment, eventually pulselessness/pallor (late findings)
Diagnosis is CLINICAL - do not delay for imaging or pressure measurements if classic findings present
Treatment is URGENT 4-compartment fasciotomy - perform immediately (within 6 hours for best outcomes)
HTO risk factors for compartment syndrome: Prolonged tourniquet time, excessive soft tissue trauma, vascular injury, positioning with knee flexed
Sequelae of missed compartment syndrome: Volkmann contracture (permanent muscle necrosis), foot drop, clawing, chronic pain, limb dysfunction
COMMON TRAPS
✗Delaying diagnosis by ordering imaging (CT/MRI) or waiting for orthopedic attending review in unclear case (if suspicion exists, must decompress)
✗Treating pain with increasing narcotic doses without examining compartments (masks progression, delays diagnosis)
✗Performing incomplete fasciotomy (releasing only anterior compartment) - must release all 4 compartments in leg
✗Attempting primary closure of fasciotomy wounds (causes recurrent compartment syndrome - leave open, close at 48-72 hours)
✗Not checking for rhabdomyolysis and myoglobin-induced renal failure post-fasciotomy (serious systemic complication)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What are the 4 compartments of the leg and how do you release them? (Anterior, lateral, superficial posterior, deep posterior. Release via 2-incision technique: anterolateral incision releases anterior + lateral, posteromedial incision releases superficial + deep posterior)"
"What is delta pressure and why is it important? (Diastolic BP minus compartment pressure. More accurate than absolute pressure in hypotensive patients. Delta P under 30mmHg indicates compartment syndrome regardless of absolute pressure)"
"How can you prevent compartment syndrome in HTO? (Limit tourniquet time under 90 minutes, release tourniquet before closure and achieve hemostasis, avoid excessive soft tissue stripping, maintain leg in neutral position not flexed, high index of suspicion in high-risk patients)"
"What would you tell the patient and family about prognosis after fasciotomy? (If decompressed within 6 hours: 80-90% full recovery. If delayed 6-12 hours: 50% risk of permanent deficit. If delayed beyond 12 hours: High likelihood of permanent muscle necrosis, foot drop, chronic pain, possible amputation in severe cases)"

MCQ Practice Points

Anatomy Question

Q: What percentage of the tibial plateau width (measured from medial edge) represents the Fujisawa point, the target for mechanical axis passage in HTO?

A: 62-65%. The Fujisawa point represents the ideal target for mechanical axis passage after HTO correction. This corresponds to approximately 3-5° of valgus overcorrection from neutral alignment. Studies show that achieving correction to the Fujisawa point provides optimal medial compartment unloading while avoiding excessive lateral compartment loading. Undercorrection (under 60%) leads to early failure due to continued medial overload, while overcorrection (over 70%) can cause lateral compartment pain and progression of lateral OA.

Biomechanics Question

Q: How much does posterior tibial slope increase for every 5mm of opening in an opening wedge HTO?

A: Approximately 2° per 5mm of opening. This occurs because the opening wedge creates a wedge shape that is thicker anteriorly than posteriorly, tilting the tibial plateau backward. For a 10mm opening wedge correction, expect approximately 4° increase in posterior tibial slope. Excessive slope increase (over 5° from baseline) can destabilize the knee, increase ACL graft tension in reconstructed knees, and alter knee kinematics. Slope increase can be minimized by: using anterior opening wedge technique, planning osteotomy cut perpendicular to tibial shaft axis, or using biplane osteotomy. Closing wedge HTO typically maintains or slightly decreases posterior slope.

Surgical Technique Question

Q: What is the biplanar osteotomy technique in opening wedge HTO and why is it performed?

A: Biplanar osteotomy consists of an ascending cut from anteromedial to posterolateral, followed by a descending cut from anterolateral toward posterior, forming an L-shaped or hockey stick pattern. This preserves the posterior cortex as a stable hinge. Benefits: Reduces lateral hinge fracture rate from 20% (traditional single cut) to under 10% (biplanar technique), provides more stable construct for fixation (intact posterior cortex acts as tension band), and allows controlled gradual opening without catastrophic fracture propagation. Technical keys: ascending cut stays 1-1.5cm below joint line on lateral fluoroscopy, stop 1cm from lateral cortex, descending cut stops 1cm from posterior cortex. The posterior cortical hinge is the key to stability.

Indications Question

Q: What are the absolute contraindications to high tibial osteotomy?

A: Absolute contraindications: (1) Inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid, psoriatic) - disease progression continues despite mechanical correction, (2) Ligamentous instability (ACL/PCL deficiency) - must reconstruct ligaments before or concurrent with HTO, (3) Bicompartmental or tricompartmental osteoarthritis - shifting load to diseased compartment leads to rapid failure, (4) Flexion contracture over 15° - cannot achieve adequate correction, (5) ROM under 90° - poor functional outcome predictable, (6) Active infection. Relative contraindications include: age over 65, BMI over 32, smoking, varus over 15°, symptomatic patellofemoral arthritis, workers compensation. The key is that absolute contraindications predict failure or complications - do not perform HTO. Relative contraindications require careful patient selection and detailed informed consent.

Complications Question

Q: What is the Takeuchi classification of lateral hinge fractures in opening wedge HTO and how does it guide management?

A: Takeuchi Classification: Type I - Lateral cortex fracture with intact posterior cortex (80% of hinge fractures). This is STABLE. Management: Proceed with standard medial locking plate fixation, the posterior cortical hinge provides sufficient stability. Type II - Fracture extends through posterior cortex, may extend to tibial plateau (20% of hinge fractures). This is UNSTABLE. Management: Requires additional fixation - either lateral locking plate bridging the fracture OR 2-3 lateral-to-medial lag screws to stabilize hinge, then complete medial plate fixation. Clinical significance: Type I fractures do not compromise outcomes if fixation is rigid, while Type II fractures have higher loss of correction risk but can achieve good results with augmented fixation. Prevention: Biplanar osteotomy technique, gradual opening, stopping cuts 1cm from lateral cortex. Recognition: Audible crack, loss of resistance during opening. Assessment: Lateral fluoroscopy to confirm posterior cortex integrity.

Evidence Question

Q: Is bone graft necessary in opening wedge HTO? What does the evidence show?

A: No, bone graft is NOT necessary for opening gaps under 10mm with modern locking plate fixation (Level 1 evidence from meta-analysis of RCTs, Han et al. 2019). Key findings: No difference in union rates (95% graft vs 93% no graft), no difference in clinical outcomes at 2 years, and no difference in loss of correction rates with modern locking plates (TomoFix). Recommendations: Gaps under 10mm - no bone graft needed (stable fixation sufficient). Gaps 10-15mm - consider bone graft to accelerate healing (may reduce delayed union risk from 10% to 5%). Gaps over 15mm - should be avoided if possible (high complication risk), or bone graft mandatory if performed. Graft options (if used): Allograft cancellous chips (most common), autograft from proximal tibia or iliac crest, bone graft substitutes (calcium phosphate, calcium sulfate). The shift to modern locking plate technology has eliminated the routine need for bone grafting, simplifying the procedure and reducing donor site morbidity.

Australian Context and Medicolegal Considerations

AOANJRR Data on HTO in Australia

Australian Registry Findings (2023 Annual Report):

  • 12,847 HTOs performed 2008-2022 (tracking complete)
  • 10-year survival: 87.3% (comparable to UKA at 89%)
  • 15-year survival: 72.5% (declining as cohorts age)
  • Age stratification: Under 50 (91% at 10 years), 50-60 (86%), over 60 (78%)
  • BMI impact: Under 30 (88% survival) vs over 35 (71% survival)
  • Technique shift: Opening wedge now 92% of HTOs (vs 50% in 2008)

Clinical Implications:

  • HTO outcomes in Australia match international benchmarks
  • Opening wedge has become dominant (bone preservation, easier conversion to TKA)
  • Patient selection (age, BMI) significantly impacts outcomes
  • Registry supports HTO as durable joint preservation option

Australian Guidelines and Standards

ACSQHC Arthroplasty Standards (2022):

  • No specific HTO guidelines (focused on joint replacement)
  • General surgical standards apply: informed consent, VTE prophylaxis, antibiotic prophylaxis

AOA Position Statements:

  • HTO is recognized joint preservation option for unicompartmental OA
  • Recommend subspecialty training for HTO (not general orthopaedics)
  • Encourage registry participation for all HTOs

PBS Medications:

  • Standard VTE prophylaxis (enoxaparin or rivaroxaban)
  • Antibiotic prophylaxis (cephazolin or vancomycin)

Medicolegal Considerations

Key Medicolegal Issues in HTO

Consent Discussion Must Include:

  1. Realistic expectations: HTO is joint preservation that delays TKA 10-15 years, NOT a cure for OA. 40% convert to TKA by 15 years.
  2. Specific complications: Loss of correction (5-10%), delayed union (5%), nonunion (2-3%), compartment syndrome (under 1% but devastating), peroneal nerve palsy (5-10% in closing wedge), conversion to TKA (discuss timeline).
  3. Postoperative protocol: 6 weeks non-weight-bearing is critical - early weight-bearing significantly increases loss of correction risk. Patient must be able to comply.
  4. Alternative treatments: TKA, UKA, conservative management (injections, bracing) - document discussion and patient preference.
  5. Activity restrictions: No return to high-impact sports for 6 months minimum, avoid marathon running/jumping sports long-term to protect durability.

Documentation Requirements:

  • Full-length standing radiographs with mechanical axis measurements in medical record
  • MRI confirming isolated medial OA and intact lateral compartment
  • Detailed surgical plan including target correction angle and expected wedge size
  • Informed consent form signed and witnessed
  • Operative note detailing technique (biplanar osteotomy), complications (hinge fracture if occurred), fixation used
  • Postoperative instructions in writing (weight-bearing protocol, follow-up schedule)

Common Litigation Issues:

  1. Poor patient selection (age over 65, bicompartmental OA) leading to early failure - alleged negligence in offering HTO vs TKA
  2. Compartment syndrome missed or delayed diagnosis - alleged failure to recognize or delay in fasciotomy
  3. Loss of correction requiring revision - alleged inadequate fixation or failure to enforce non-weight-bearing protocol
  4. Conversion to TKA earlier than expected - alleged undercorrection or poor surgical technique
  5. Peroneal nerve palsy in closing wedge - alleged failure to warn or improper technique

Risk Mitigation Strategies:

  • Strict adherence to selection criteria (document why patient is ideal candidate or acknowledge relative contraindications)
  • Clear discussion of realistic outcomes (not overselling HTO as permanent solution)
  • Detailed consent including specific complication rates for this patient based on age/BMI
  • Postoperative vigilance for compartment syndrome (low threshold to examine patient if high pain reported)
  • Radiographic follow-up at 2, 6, 12 weeks to detect loss of correction early

Hospital Systems and Workforce

HTO in Public Hospitals

Availability: Limited in public sector (most major metropolitan centers offer, regional/rural limited).

Wait times: 6-12 months typical for semi-urgent category (Category 2).

Equipment: Navigation systems, modern locking plates available in teaching hospitals, may be limited in smaller centers.

Expertise: Concentration in subspecialty adult reconstruction/knee surgeons (not general orthopaedics).

Alternative pathways: Some patients choose private surgery due to wait times, particularly younger patients wanting faster return to work.

Training and Credentialing

Fellowship Training: HTO typically taught in adult reconstruction or sports medicine fellowships, not routine in general training.

Learning Curve: 20-30 cases to achieve consistent accuracy in correction, 50+ cases for mastery (navigation reduces curve).

Credentialing: Most private hospitals require evidence of training (fellowship) or proctoring before granting HTO privileges.

Volume: High-volume centers (over 50 HTO/year) have better outcomes than low-volume (under 10/year) - consider referral for complex cases.

This Australian context is critical for Orthopaedic candidates practicing in Australia - understand local registry data and medicolegal landscape.

HIGH TIBIAL OSTEOTOMY

High-Yield Exam Summary

Patient Selection (ACTIVE Mnemonic)

  • •Age 40-60 years (ideal window for durability)
  • •Compartment isolated medial (Ahlbäck 1-2, lateral pristine on MRI)
  • •Tibiofemoral stability (ACL/PCL intact - instability is contraindication)
  • •Inflammatory arthritis absent (RA, psoriatic progress despite HTO)
  • •Varus under 15° (large corrections fail, undercorrection inevitable)
  • •Excellent ROM (flexion over 120°, extension to 0°, FFD over 15° poor outcome)

Preoperative Planning Essentials

  • •Full-length standing films MANDATORY (hip-knee-ankle for mechanical axis)
  • •Target: Fujisawa point = 62-65% tibial plateau width from medial edge
  • •Correction angle: 3-5° valgus overcorrection for durability
  • •MRI: Confirm lateral compartment Outerbridge 0-1 (2+ predicts failure)
  • •Calculate wedge size: 1mm opening ≈ 0.7° correction (Miniaci formula)
  • •Maximum opening 12-15mm (excessive slope change and nonunion risk beyond)

Opening Wedge Surgical Technique

  • •Approach: Medial, 4cm distal to joint line, protect pes and superficial MCL
  • •Biplanar osteotomy: Ascending + descending cuts preserve posterior cortex hinge
  • •Guide wire: 1-1.5cm below joint on lateral view (avoid intra-articular)
  • •Gradual opening: 1-2mm increments with calibrated spreaders to target
  • •Fixation: TomoFix locking plate, 3 proximal bicortical screws, 3 distal (can be unicortical)
  • •Bone graft: NOT needed for gaps under 10mm with modern plates, consider 10-15mm, mandatory over 15mm

Key Surgical Pearls

  • •Biplanar technique reduces hinge fracture rate from 20% to under 10%
  • •Posterior periosteal elevator MUST stay in place during sawing (protect vessels)
  • •Cable technique for alignment: Hip center → ankle center passes through 62-65% tibial width
  • •Type I hinge fracture (lateral cortex, intact posterior) = stable, proceed with medial plate
  • •Type II hinge fracture (posterior cortex broken) = unstable, add lateral plate or lag screws
  • •Posterior tibial slope increases ~2° per 5mm opening - limit total increase to under 5°

Complications and Management

  • •Loss of correction 5-10% = inadequate fixation, early weight-bearing - revise if under 6 weeks
  • •Delayed union/nonunion 5% = smoking, large gap, no graft - bone graft if symptomatic at 6 months
  • •Compartment syndrome under 1% but devastating = pain out of proportion, URGENT 4-compartment fasciotomy
  • •Intra-articular fracture 1-2% = guide wire too close to joint - if small accept, if large treat as plateau fracture
  • •Peroneal nerve palsy 5-10% closing wedge, rare opening wedge = observation, 80% recover by 12 months
  • •Conversion to TKA 40% by 15 years = natural history, does NOT compromise TKA outcomes

Key Evidence and Outcomes

  • •10-year survival 85-90% in ideal patients (age under 60, BMI under 30, isolated medial OA) - AOANJRR 2023
  • •PROSKAR trial: HTO + cartilage procedure 20% better knee scores than cartilage alone at 5 years
  • •Opening vs closing wedge: No difference clinical outcomes, opening wedge preferred for bone preservation, no nerve risk
  • •Bone graft meta-analysis: NOT needed for gaps under 10mm with locking plates (Han 2019 Level 1)
  • •Post-HTO TKA outcomes: No difference vs primary TKA in revision rate or clinical scores (Micicoi 2021)
  • •Predictors poor outcome: Age over 60, BMI over 30, bicompartmental OA, undercorrection, smoking
Quick Stats
Complexityadvanced
Reading Time25 min
Updated2026-01-02
Related

Browse all procedures

View full catalog