The Clinical Observation On The Therapy Of Varus Knee OA Using Atrhroscopic Debirdement Combined With Open High Tibial Osteotomy

Purpose: Literature, the simple arthroscopic debridement or high open tibialosteotomy for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis clinical results is satisfactory. But theircombination is still a lack of clinical follow-up study, this study aim is by observing varusknee arthritis clinical efficacy by the arthroscopic debridement combined with high opentibial osteotomy, for the clinical treatment of knee osteoarthritis providing a much safer,reasonable and efficient treatment ideas and methods.Methods: The40cases turn-based mid-knee osteoarthritis patients by the proportionof1:1were randomly divided into two groups:treatment group and controlgroup.Treatment group uses arthroscopic knee debridement combined with opening tibialosteotomy,while the control group uses the simple arthroscopic knee debridement.AfterMarch,June,December,18months and24months, court respectively the two groups kneelysholm,IKDC score, according to the scoring results to evaluate the clinical efficacy ofthe two groups of surgical methods.Results: Lysholm score of treatment group and control group in March after surgery,bilateral P=0.168>0.05, the difference was not statistically significant;6monthspostoperatively, bilateral P=.413>0.05, no significant difference between the twogroups; after December, bilateral P=1.000>0.05, the two groups no significantdifference;18months after surgery, bilateral P=0.302>0.05, the difference was notsignificant; after24months, bilateral P=0.000<0.01, two groups’ efficacy has asignificant difference, the treatment group mean were significantly greater than the control group, so the treatment group were significantly better than the control group after24months. IKDC score, the two groups in March after surgery, bilateral p=0.133>0.05,the difference was not statistically significant;6months postoperatively, bilateral P=0.036>0.01, there was no significant difference; after December bilateral P=0.033<0.05, two groups were significantly different;18months after surgery, bilateral P=0.106>0.01, the difference was not statistically significant;24months after surgery, bilateral P=0.000<0.05, two groups’ efficacy has a significant difference, the treatment groupmean were significantly greater than the control group, so the treatment group weresignificantly better than the control group after24months.Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the treatment group and thecontrol group by the Postoperative short-term efficacy, but over time, the clinical efficacyof the treatment group was significantly better than the control group. However, clinicalfollow-up time has not long enough, we can not assess the clinical efficacy over2years,so the results of this study has some limitations.