This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keene, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Dyreby, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keene, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Dyreby, J. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 65, Issue 1 36-42, Copyright © 1983 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

High tibial osteotomy in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. The role of preoperative arthroscopy

JS Keene and JR Dyreby

Sixty osteoarthritic knees that were evaluated by arthroscopic, radiographic, and clinical (Insall knee-rating scale) examination prior to high tibial valgus osteotomy were re-evaluated radiographically and clinically after a minimum follow-up of two years. After two and three years, the clinical scores of the knees with bicompartmental and tricompartmental osteoarthritis (including exposed subchondral bone in the lateral compartment) were the same as the scores of the knees with unicompartmental disease. The scores of the knees with 5 to 13 degrees of valgus alignment at two years were significantly higher (p less than 0.01) than the scores of the knees with less than 5 degrees of valgus angulation, regardless of the arthroscopy scores. Based on the results after two to three years, the arthroscopic findings prior to osteotomy appeared to have little, if any, predictive value in evaluating patients for this procedure.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
J. M. Wright, H. C. Crockett, D. P. Slawski, M. W. Madsen, and R. E. Windsor
High Tibial Osteotomy
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., July 1, 2005; 13(4): 279 - 289.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
R. Iorio and W. L. Healy
Unicompartmental Arthritis of the Knee
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 3, 2003; 85(7): 1351 - 1364.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
A. D. Hanssen, M. J. Stuart, R. D. Scott, and G. R. Scuderi
Surgical Options for the Middle-Aged Patient with Osteoarthritis of the Knee Joint*{{dagger}}
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2000; 82(12): 1767 - 1767.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
R. J. Williams III, T. L. Wickiewicz, and R. F. Warren
Management of Unicompartmental Arthritis in the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Deficient Knee
Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2000; 28(5): 749 - 760.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]