Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

An Imaging Measurement Study of Normal Knee Parameters in Southeast China

Author(s): Huitong Liu, Bingqiang Xu, Eryou Feng, Shizhang Liu, Wei Zhang, Yusheng Qiu and Yiyuan Zhang*

Volume 18, Issue 1, 2022

Published on: 13 December, 2021

Article ID: e270821195909 Pages: 6

DOI: 10.2174/1573405617666210827131228

Price: $65

Abstract

Background: Imaging measurement of distal femur and proximal tibia has been the hot point in the research of total knee arthroplasty and prosthesis development, which is an important treatment for patients with advanced knee joint disease. This study retrospectively investigated the digital imaging measurement of normal knee parameters in southeast China and evaluated their clinical value.

Methods: From February 2010 to May 2014, and in accordance with the inclusion criteria, a total of 677 knees (334 female knees and 343 male knees) were categorized into 3 age groups. Clinical and digital imaging data, including the distal Femoral Condyle Diameter (FCD), Tibial Plateau Diameter (TPD), the distance between the medial tibial plateau and fibular head (DPF), tibiofemoral valgus angle, distal femoral valgus angle, Proximal Tibia (PT) varus angle and the angle from femoral condyle to tibial perpendicular (FT), were measured by using AutoCAD 10.0 software. All measured variables were statistically analyzed by SPSS statistical software (version 18.0).

Results: Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. The normal female and male femoral condyle diameter was (7.69 ± 0.46) cm and (8.68 ± 0.55) cm, while the normal female and male tibial plateau diameter was (7.66 ± 0.46) cm and (8.60 ± 0.55) cm, respectively. The normal female and male DPF was (0.76 ± 0.36) cm and (0.79 ± 0.36) cm. For females and males, the tibiofemoral valgus angle and distal femoral valgus angle were (3.89 ± 2.20) ° and (3.29 ± 2.12) °, (9.03 ± 2.18) ° and (8.25 ± 2.20) °. As the two methods to measure tibial plateau varus angle, PT angle of normal female and male was (4.29 ± 1.86) ° and (4.84 ± 2.23) °, while the normal female and male FT angle was (5.34 ± 1.95) ° and (5.52 ± 2.07) °. Based on the data obtained, we found significant differences between the two genders in terms of the femoral condyle diameter and tibial plateau diameter in all age groups (P < 0.01). The DPF parameter showed an obvious difference between the young group and the middle-aged group (P < 0.05), and no significant difference was observed between the sides and genders (P > 0.05). The distal femoral valgus angle showed statistical differences between genders in the left side of the young group and middle-aged group (P < 0.05), while angle PT and FT showed no significant difference (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: A large number of knee measurements was obtained, and a local knee database was developed in this study. Imaging measurement prior to total knee arthroplasty is clinically important for increasing the accuracy and long-term efficacy of total knee arthroplasty. These data can also provide useful information for knee surgery and sports medicine as well as prosthesis development.

Keywords: Knee joint, tibial plateau, femur, fibula, digital imaging measurement, total knee arthroplasty, parameters.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Huitong L, Bingqiang X, Lili X, et al. Imaging measurement of normal knees in southeast China: A study of posterior slope angle and patella parameters. J Med Imag Health In 2016; 6(2): 547-50.
[2]
Zhou X, Wang M, Liu C, Zhang L, Zhou Y. Total knee arthroplasty for severe valgus knee deformity. Chin Med J (Engl) 2014; 127(6): 1062-6.
[PMID: 24622435]
[3]
Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS, Elkus M, Rasquinha VJ, Rossi R, Babhulkar S. Total knee arthroplasty for severe valgus deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(Pt 2)(Suppl. 1): 271-84.
[PMID: 16140800]
[4]
Liu H, Zhao Z, Wu X, et al. The imaging measurement of KBD knees and its clinical significance. Ann Anat 2014; 196(S1): 167-8.
[5]
Chinese orthopaedic association. Guidelines for the diagnosis and medical management of osteoarthritis. Zhonghua Guke Zazhi 2007; 27(10): 793-6.
[6]
Bozkurt M, Yilmaz E, Atlihan D, Tekdemir I, Havitçioğlu H, Günal I. The proximal tibiofibular joint: An anatomic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (406): 136-40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200301000-00022] [PMID: 12579012]
[7]
Akagi M, Yamashita E, Nakagawa T, Asano T, Nakamura T. Relationship between frontal knee alignment and reference axes in the distal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388): 147-56.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200107000-00022] [PMID: 11451114]
[8]
Nagamine R, Miura H, Bravo CV, et al. Anatomic variations should be considered in total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 2000; 5(3): 232-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s007760050157] [PMID: 10982663]
[9]
Jiang Y, Du H, Liu J, Zhou Y. Aspirin combined with mechanical measures to prevent venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. Chin Med J (Engl) 2014; 127(12): 2201-5.
[PMID: 24931228]
[10]
Yoo JH, Yi SR, Kim JH. The geometry of patella and patellar tendon measured on knee MRI. Surg Radiol Anat 2007; 29(8): 623-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00276-007-0261-x] [PMID: 17898923]
[11]
Baldwin JL, House CK. Anatomic dimensions of the patella measured during total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20(2): 250-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.027] [PMID: 15902866]
[12]
Ritter MA, Montgomery TJ, Zhou H, Keating ME, Faris PM, Meding JB. The clinical significance of proximal tibial resection level in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (360): 174-81.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199903000-00021] [PMID: 10101323]
[13]
Meding JB, Ritter MA, Faris PM. Total knee arthroplasty with 4.4 mm of tibial polyethylene: 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388): 112-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200107000-00017] [PMID: 11451109]
[14]
Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404): 7-13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200211000-00003] [PMID: 12439231]
[15]
Fornalski S, McGarry MH, Bui CN, Kim WC, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of joint line elevation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012; 27(8): 824-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.05.009] [PMID: 22727620]
[16]
Moreland JR, Bassett LW, Hanker GJ. Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69(5): 745-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198769050-00016] [PMID: 3597474]
[17]
Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Urabe K, Mawatari T, Iwamoto Y. A comparison of rotational landmarks in the distal femur and the tibial shaft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (414): 183-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000072904.36018.79] [PMID: 12966292]
[18]
Insall JN, Scott WN. Surgical techniques and instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Surgery of the knee New York Churchill Livingston 2001; pp.1553-620.
[19]
Jazrawi LM, Birdzell L, Kummer FJ, Di Cesare PE. The accuracy of computed tomography for determining femoral and tibial total knee arthroplasty component rotation. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15(6): 761-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/arth.2000.8193] [PMID: 11021452]
[20]
Yip DK, Zhu YH, Chiu KY, Ng TP. Distal rotational alignment of the Chinese femur and its relevance in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19(5): 613-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2003.11.008] [PMID: 15284983]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
19
5
1
1
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy