Mylène Jansen

Osteophyte formation after KJD and HTO 359 17 Figure 2 : Representative radiograph of a patient before and 2 years after knee joint distraction treatment. None of the baseline characteristics in Table 1 had a significant influence on the 2-year change in osteophyte size (all p> 0.32; Supplementary Table S2). Comparison with high tibial osteotomy HTO patients showed a significant increase in total WOMAC (+30.8; 95%CI 25.5–36.1; p< 0.001) and in MAC JSW (+0.32; 0.03–0.61; p= 0.034) as shown in Table 2. The WOMAC subscales showed a similar increase. HTO patients showed a significant osteophyte change after treatment ( p< 0.001), increasing from 29.6 (SD 16.5) mm 2 at baseline to 36.6 (17.4) mm 2 at 2 years (Figure 1C). The changes in the lateral femur (6.0 (4.6) mm 2 to 8.1 (5.7) mm 2 ; p< 0.001) and medial tibia (8.0 (6.7) mm 2 to 11.0 (8.2) mm 2 ; p= 0.006) were statistically significant (Figure 1D). Like the entire KJD cohort, the KJD HTO patients showed a significant increase after treatment (from 27.4 (15.0) mm 2 to 35.0 (17.6) mm 2 ; p< 0.001), and only the lateral femur showed a significant increase (from 4.6 (3.8) mm 2 to 8.1 (4.5) mm 2 ; p= 0.006; Supplementary Figure S1). There was no significant difference between KJD HTO and the other KJD patients for the total osteophyte changes over 2 years ( p= 0.566). There was no significant difference in the osteophyte changes between HTO and KJD HTO ( p= 0.592; Figure 1C).