Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07212777

Precision of Pacient-specific Instrumented Open Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy vs Conventional Technicque

This study is a randomized clinical trial that will compare two surgical techniques for patients with knee osteoarthritis and varus deformity who are candidates for medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy. The goal is to evaluate whether using patient-specific 3D-printed surgical guides improves the accuracy of the bone cut compared with the conventional technique performed with anatomical landmarks and fluoroscopy.

A total of 50 adult patients will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: conventional osteotomy or osteotomy assisted by patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). The main outcome is the accuracy of the osteotomy cut, measured by comparing preoperative planning with the postoperative CT scan. Secondary outcomes include leg alignment, surgical time, radiation exposure, complications, and functional recovery assessed with validated questionnaires (KOOS, WOMAC, IKDC, EQ-5D) and gait analysis using depth cameras.

Patients will be followed for up to 12 months after surgery to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year–70 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

About this study

Medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy is a well-established surgical procedure to correct knee alignment in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus deformity. The accuracy of the bone cut is critical for surgical success. However, conventional techniques performed with anatomical landmarks and fluoroscopy may result in variability and suboptimal correction.

Recent advances in 3D imaging and printing allow the creation of patient-specific surgical guides designed from preoperative CT scans. These guides may improve the accuracy and reproducibility of the osteotomy.

This single-center randomized clinical trial will include 50 adult patients, randomly assigned to undergo conventional osteotomy or osteotomy assisted by patient-specific instrumentation. The main outcome is the accuracy of the osteotomy cut compared with preoperative planning. Secondary outcomes include leg alignment, surgical efficiency, radiation exposure, complications, and functional recovery. Patients will be followed for 12 months.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Informed consent: able to sign informed consent
  • Clinical: predominantly medial pain/limitation refractory ≥3-6 months
  • Mobility: flexion ≥90º and flexion contracture ≤10º Stability: varus/valgus and pivot-shift ≤ grade 1.
  • Radiology:
  • Medial gonarthrosis Ahlbäck I-III with preserved lateral compartment.
  • Patellofemoral Iwano 0-2 without disabling patellofemoral pain.
  • Varus alignment: HKA 4-10°.
  • Predominantly tibial deformity (decreased MPTA; LDFA close to normal) according to planning.
  • Anatomy/technical feasibility: proximal tibial morphology suitable for medial opening osteotomy and PSI guide placement.

Exclusion criteria

  • Comorbidity/clinical situations:
  • Inflammatory arthritis (e.g., RA, spondyloarthropathies), unresolved previous joint infection or osteomyelitis.
  • Severe peripheral vasculopathy (ABI <0.7), advanced peripheral neuropathy or Charcot foot.
  • Poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c >8.5%), advanced renal/hepatic failure (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m²; Child-Pugh B/C).
  • Smoking >20 cigarettes/day without commitment to cessation; active IV drug use or uncontrolled alcoholism.
  • BMI >35 kg/m².
  • Disorder affecting gait (e.g., neurological disease).
  • Inability to walk at a speed of at least 0.8m/s
  • Anatomy/radiology
  • Multiplanar deformities not correctable with isolated medial opening tibial valgus osteotomy (e.g., dominant femoral deformity).
  • Severe medial subchondral bone defect or extensive necrosis.
  • Sequelae of proximal tibia fracture or previous ipsilateral HTO that prevent correction or guide use.
  • Treatments/medication and logistics
  • Anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy that cannot be suspended or bridged.
  • Systemic corticosteroids >10 mg/day or high-risk immunosuppressants without possibility of adjustment.
  • Intra-articular infiltration (HA/CS/PRP) within the previous 60 days (respect defined wash-out).
  • Pregnancy.
  • Participation in another interfering trial.
  • Inability to undergo CT (e.g., uncontrollable claustrophobia).
  • Inability to complete ≥12 months of follow-up.

Treatment and study plan

Medial Open Wedge Hight Tibial Osteotomy using patient-specific instrumentation

Procedure

Medial Open Wedge Hight Tibial Osteotomy using 3D printed patient-specific instrumentation as a guide for the osteotomy

Medial Open Wedge Hight Tibial Osteotomy using conventional surgery techniques

Procedure

Conventional Medial Open Wedge Hight Tibial Osteotomy

Primary outcomes

  1. Angular precision in AP and lateral planes

    Time frame: Immediate postoperative period

    Difference between planned and executed angles in AP and lateral planes

  2. Distance to joint line

    Time frame: Immediate postoperative period

    Difference between planned and executed distance between osteotomy cut and and joint line

Secondary outcomes

  1. Postoperative alignment (HKA angle)

    Time frame: Immediate postoperative period

    Difference between planned and achieved hip-knee-ankle angle

  2. Posterior tibial slope (PTS)

    Time frame: Immediate postoperative period

    Difference between planned and achieved tibial slope

  3. Surgical time

    Time frame: Day of surgery

    Duration from skin incision to closure

  4. Number of fluoroscopic images

    Time frame: Day of surgery

    Total intraoperative fluoroscopy shots

  5. Radiation dose

    Time frame: Day of surgery

    Cumulative radiation exposure during surgery (mGy)

  6. Intraoperative complications

    Time frame: Day of surgery

    Events such as hinge fracture or neurovascular injury

  7. Postoperative complications

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Infection, delayed bone healing, thrombotic events

  8. Reoperation

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Need for additional surgical intervention

  9. Functional recovery

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Time to full weight-bearing without assistance

  10. Radiographic consolidation

    Time frame: From surgery until the end of the 12 month follow-up

    Time to radiographic evidence of bone healing

  11. 5 Sit to Stand Test

    Time frame: From surgery until the end of the 12 month follow-up

    Time it takes the patient to perform 5 sit to stands

  12. Visual Analog Scale (VAS for pain)

    Time frame: From surgery until the end of the 12 month follow-up

    Range 0-10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst imaginable pain. Higher scores indicate worse outcome.

  13. Percentage of patients with a +-2º correction within the planned osteotomy

    Time frame: Immediate postoperative period

    Precision of the alignment of the knee with respect tot he planned osteotomy

  14. Timed-Up-and-Go

    Time frame: From surgery until the end of the 12 month follow-up

    Time that it takes the patient to stand up from a chair and walk 10 meters, turn 180º and return to the starting position

  15. Balance Test (from the Short Physical Performance Battery, SPPB)

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    The balance component of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) assesses the ability to maintain three standing positions: feet together, semi-tandem, and tandem stand, each for up to 10 seconds. The test is scored from 0 to 4, where 0 = unable to hold any position, and 4 = able to hold the tandem position for 10 seconds. Higher scores indicate better balance performance.

  16. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Each subscale scored from 0-100, where 0 = extreme problems and 100 = no problems. Higher scores indicate better outcome.

  17. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Score range 0-100, where 0 = worst knee function and 100 = no limitations. Higher scores indicate better outcome.

  18. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Scored 0-96, where higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness, and physical function.

  19. EuroQol 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L)

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Index score range usually from -0.59 (worst health state) to 1 (perfect health); higher scores indicate better quality of life.

  20. Lower Limb Functional Index (LLFI)

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Patient-reported questionnaire that measures lower limb functional status. It consists of 25 items scored as "yes" (1 point), "sometimes" (0.5 points), or "no" (0 points). The raw score is summed and converted to a percentage (0-100). Higher scores indicate greater disability, while lower scores indicate better functional status. Ranges from 0-100. Higher scores mean a worse outcome.

  21. Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ)

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Patient-reported questionnaire assessing foot health across several domains: pain, function, footwear, and general foot health. Each domain score is transformed to a 0-100 scale. Higher scores indicate better foot health and function. Range: 0-100 for each domain. Higher scores mean a better outcome.

  22. Foot Function Index (FFI)

    Time frame: From surgery to end of 12 month follow-up

    Patient-reported measure assessing foot pain, disability, and activity limitation. Contains 23 items scored on a visual analog scale (0-10). The total score is normalized to a 0-100 scale. Higher scores indicate greater pain, disability, and activity limitation. Range: 0-100. Higher scores mean a worse outcome.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Amparo Zamora-Mogollo

CONTACT

[email protected]

+34673662020

Juan Miguel Gómez Palomo, PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Malaga

Other

Collaborators

  • Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria

Registry information

Official study title

Precisión de la osteotomía Tibial Proximal Con Instrumental Paciente-específico vs técnica Convencional

Acronym: AMBE_OR

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2028
First posted
Oct 8, 2025
Registry last updated
Jul 22, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.