Table 2.
author, year | eligible knees, N | knees lost to follow-up, N | included patients, N | TKA, N | women, % | OA,% | time bought by HTO†, years | age at TKA†, years | follow-up†, years | patients with missing data, N | |
Van Raaij, 2007 [11] | HTO | 18 | 4 | 12 | 14 | 83 | 100 | 4.8 | 60 | 3.7 | 0 |
control | 342 | - | 12 | 14 | 83 | 100 | NA | 61 | 4.0 | 0 | |
Haslam, 2007 [4] | HTO | 78 | 27 | 40 | 51 | 48 | 100 | 4.8 | 65 | 12.6 | 0 |
control | - | - | 44 | 51 | 48 | 100 | NA | 65 | 12.6 | 0 | |
Huang, 2002 [16] | HTO | - | - | 15 | 17 | 87 | 100 | 8 | 61 | 5 | 0 |
control | - | - | 14 | 17 | 86 | 100 | NA | 62 | 5 | 0 | |
Karabatsos, 2002 [17] | HTO | - | - | 20 | 22 | 50 | 95 | 8.4 | 59 | 5.2 | 3 |
control | - | - | 20 | 21 | 50 | 95 | NA | 60 | 4.7 | 3 | |
Meding, 2000 [18]a | HTO | 39 | - | 39 | 39 | 31 | 97 | 8.7 | 67 | 7.5 | 0 |
control | 39 | - | 39 | 39 | 31 | 97 | NA | 67 | 6.8 | 0 | |
Haddad, 2000 [19] | HTO | 50 | 0 | 42 | 50 | 62 | 100 | 7.3 | 65 | 6.2 | 2 |
control | - | - | 42 | 50 | 57 | 100 | NA | 66 | - | 1 | |
Nizard, 1998 [20] | HTO | 63 | 6 | 55 | 63 | 85 | 100 | 9.7 | 72 | 4.5 | 5 |
control | 537 | - | - | 63 | 78 | 100 | NA | 71 | 4.0 | - | |
Amendola, 1998 [21] | HTO | 42 | - | 39 | 42 | 36 | 100 | 5.4 | 64 | 3.1 | - |
control | 168 | - | 39 | 41 | 49 | 100 | NA | 65 | 3.1 | - | |
Mont, 1994 [22] | HTO | 80 | 7 | 73 | 73 | 49 | 89 | 5 | 62 | 6.1 | 0 |
control I b | 974 | - | 73 | 73 | 49 | 89 | NA | 64 | 6.0 | 0 | |
control II c | 974 | - | 73 | 73 | 49 | 88 | NA | 64 | 6.2 | 0 |
NA = not applicable
- = not mentioned in manuscript
† = the values are given as the average
a = patient group received bilateral TKA after unilateral HTO and served as own control
b = matched for pre-TKA deformity (within 5°)
c = matched for pre-HTO deformity (only varus knees)