Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 29;101(30):e29576. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029576

Table 1.

Summary of characteristics, patient demographic details for each study.

Study Design HTO type/UKA model Number of operation knees Age (y) Female/Male BMI (kg/m2) OA severtity grade Follow-up
Liu 2021 Retrospective OWHTO/MB HTO 48 59.5 ± 3.5 32/16 28.1 ± 1.8 K-L grade 2/3 3.3 Y
UKA 49 61.2 ± 2.8 31/18 27.3 ± 2.1 3.5 Y
Watanabe 2021 Retrospective OWHTO/UKA HTO 48(46 patients) 61.3 ± 9.8 NC 26.1 ± 3.8 K–L grade 2/3 22.0 M
UKA 48(44 patients) 73.8 ± 5.2 24.1 ± 2.8 22.5 M
Rodkey 2021 Retrospective OWHTO/UKA HTO 113 40 12/101 29.8 NC 5.3 Y
UKA 270 48 80/190 31.0 6.3 Y
Lin 2021 Retrospective OWHTO/MB HTO 53 56.0 ± 10.2 40/13 26.3 ± 3.2 K–L grade 2/3 More than 1 y
UKA 61 61.4 ± 4.7 46/15 26.0 ± 3.1
Jin 2021 Retrospective OWHTO/FB HTO 67 64.1 ± 4.0 67/0 25.5 ± 3.1 K–L grade 3/4 16/51 More than 1 y
UKA 67 63.1 ± 4.9 65/2 25.5 ± 2.8 15/52
Zhang 2020 Retrospective OWHTO/UKA HTO 109 51.8 ± 6.9 86/23 26.4 ± 3.6 NC 40.2 ± 13.5 M
UKA 83 53.7 ± 5.2 66/17 27.7 ± 4.1 39.3 ± 11.2 M
Hou 2020 Retrospective OWHTO/MB HTO 30 NC NC NC NC NC
UKA 30
Chen 2020 Retrospective OWHTO/MB HTO 18 56.1 ± 6.4 13/5 NC K–L grade 2/3 1.0–2.8 Y
UKA 20 56.1 ± 6.5 14/6 1.0–3.2 Y
Jacquet 2020 Retrospective OWHTO/FB HTO 50 49.3 ± 3.9 22/28 26.6 ± 2.6 NC 3.7 ± 1.6 Y
UKA 50 50.8 ± 4.4 21/29 27.1 ± 3.1 3.9 ± 1.8 Y
Song 2019 Retrospective CWHTO/FB HTO 60 59.7 ± 4.1 51/9 25.1 ± 3.6 K–L grade 3/4 50/10 10.7 ± 5.7 Y
UKA 50 60.8 ± 3.9 43/7 25.3 ± 3.4 34/36 12.0 ± 7.1 Y
Koh 2019 Retrospective OWHTO/MB HTO 123 56.1 ± 5.6 104/19 25.9 ± 3.2 AH grade <2/≥2 97/26 2 Y
UKA 118 60.8 ± 4.7 98/20 25.8 ± 2.9 37/81 2 Y
Kim 2019 Prospective OWHTO/MB HTO 49 56.1 ± 6.2 43/6 26.6 ± 9.2 K–L grade 2/3/4 9/28/12 2 Y
UKA 42 63.6 ± 5.5 35/7 25.3 ± 2.4 0/23/19 2 Y
Ryu 2018 Retrospective OWHTO/FB HTO 23 57.6 ± 6.4 22/1 27.7 ± 2.9 NC 40.0 ± 19.4 M
UKA 22 60.5 ± 3.4 19/3 25.4 ± 3.6 33.1 ± 8.7 M
Cho 2018 Retrospective OWHTO/ MB HTO 20(17 patients) 58.4 ± 5.5 12/8 26.5 ± 2.5 AH grade 2/3 18/2 48.4 ± 14.3 M
UKA 20(17 patients) 67.9 ± 9.0 19/1 26.1 ± 2.6 13/7 39.7 ± 14.0 M
Zhao 2017 Prospective OWHTO/UKA HTO 36 53.91 ± 7.35 33/3 NC K–L grade 2/3 10/26 2 Y
UKA 36 52.47 ± 8.41 31/5 11/25 2 Y
Maxwell 2017 Retrospective OWHTO/MB HTO 75 Under 55 NC NC NC 8.1 Y
UKA 95 Under 55 6.1 Y
Krych 2017 Retrospective OWHTO, CWHTO/MB HTO 57 42.7 16/41 31.8 NC >2 Y
UKA 183 49.2 95/88 32.4 >2 Y
Jeon 2017 Retrospective OWHTO/FB HTO 26 56.8 22/4 26.6 NC 34.7 M
UKA 21 60.7 17/4 26.1 34.7 M
Petersen 2016 Retrospective OWHTO/ MB HTO 23 58.9 ± 2.8 9/14 23 AH grade 1/2/3 14/9/0 >5 Y
UKA 25 60.7 ± 2.5 16/9 25 1/20/5 >5 Y
Tuncay 2015 Retrospective OWHTO, Demo-HTO/MB HTO 93(88 patients) 51.7, 53.5 70/18 NC NC 40.4 M, 30.7 M
UKA 109(94patients) 58.7 79/15 42.5 M
Yim 2013 Retrospective OWHTO/FB HTO 58 58.3 ± 5.4 51/7 NC NC 3.6 ± 0.4 Y
UKA 50 60.3 ± 4.5 48/2 3.7 ± 0.4 Y
Takeuchi 2010 Retrospective OWHTO/FB HTO 27(24 patients) 67 ± 7 18/6 NC AH grade 2/3/4/5 11/14/2/0 61 ± 10 M
UKA 30(18 patients) 77 ± 4 14/4 4/17/8/1 84 ± 4 M
Borjesson 2005 Prospective CWHTO/FB HTO 18 63 ± 3 8/10 NC AH grade 1/2/3 4/7/7 5 Y
UKA 22 63 ± 4 11/11 7/6/9 5 Y
Stukenborg 2001 Prospective CWHTO/FB HTO 32(32 patients) 67(60–79) 13/19 NC AH grade 1/2/3/4/5 18/7/1/5/1 7–10 Y
UKA 30(28 patients) 67(60–80) 22/6 11/9/4/6/0 7–10 Y
Weale 1994 Retrospective CWHTO/FB HTO 49(45 patients) 74 NC NC NC 12–17 Y
UKA 42(34 patients) 80 12–17 Y
Weidenhielm 1992 Prospective CWHTO/FB HTO 25 63 14/11 NC AH grade 1/2/3 4/14/10 1 Y
UKA 28 63 14/14 3/10/12 1 Y
Ivarsson 1991 Retrospective CWHTO/FB HTO 10 62 ± 4 6/4 NC AH grade 1/2/3 4/5/1 6 M
UKA 10 64 ± 5 6/4 2/4/4 12 M
Jefferson 1989 Prospective CWHTO/MB HTO 23(20 patients) 57(31–73) NC NC NC NC
UKA 19(15 patients) 64(55–74) NC
Broughton 1986 Retrospective CWHTO/FB HTO 49(45 patients) 63 NC NC K–L grade 3.3 7.8 ± 1.5 Y
UKA 42(34 patients) 71 3.2 5.8 ± 1.2 Y