Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2401–2407 | Cite as

Axial knee radiographs: consistency across clinic sites

Knee
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

(1) Do radiographic protocols for knee axial images vary across different clinic locations? (2) Does variability between radiographic positioning protocols (knee flexion angle, beam positioning) yield different radiographic measurements that could influence clinical assumptions?

Methods

Radiographic positioning, including beam angle and knee flexion, was measured using a photograph taken of a phantom leg and (human) model set-up. An axial radiograph of a phantom leg was taken at seven different outpatients musculoskeletal clinics to assess patella position (lateral tilt/translation). The phantom leg patella was placed in an abnormal position for the radiographic image across all sites.

Results

Knee flexion <30° was less accurate in obtaining requested knee flexion than higher knee flexion angles (phantom limb error averaged 6°, range 4°–7° human model error averaged 15°, range 11°–25°). Of the five sites utilizing a ‘Merchants’ axial radiographs, the congruence angle varied from +12° to +29°, being normal at one site (+12°) and abnormal (>+16°) at three sites, and negative at one site (−15°).

Conclusions

Radiographic protocols for knee axial imaging are inconsistent in radiographic positioning and imaging. This variability can lead to disparity in radiographic image results used for clinical decision-making. Standardization of radiographic positioning would yield more consistent imaging of patella position in early flexion, increasing clinical utility and accuracy.

Keywords

Patella imaging Axial radiograph Patella tilt 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Arendt EA, Fithian DC, Cohen E (2002) Current concepts of lateral patella dislocation. Clin Sports Med 21:499–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaconsfield T (1994) Radiological measurements in patellofemoral disorders: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 308:18–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carrillon Y, Abidi H, Dejour D, Fantino O, Moyen B, Tran-Minh VA (2000) Patellar instability: assessment on MR images by measuring the lateral trochlear inclination-initial experience. Radiology 216:582–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dejour D, Saggin PR, Meyer X, Tavernier T (2010) Standard x-ray examination: patellofemoral disorders. In: Zaffagnini S, Dejour D, Arendt EA (eds) Patellofemoral pain, instability, and arthritis: clinical presentation, imaging, and treatment. Springer, New York, pp 51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML et al (2004) Epidemiology and natural history of acute patellar dislocation. Am J Sports Med 32:1114–1121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Computed radiography and digital radiography: A comparison of technology, functionality, patient dose, and image quality (http://www.eradimaging.com/site/article.cfm?ID=535).ERADIMAGING.COM, 2008. Accessed 17 Sept 2013
  7. 7.
    Laurin CA, Levesque HP, Dussault R, Labelle H, Peides JP (1978) The abnormal lateral patellofemoral angle: a diagnostic roentgenographic sign of recurrent patellar subluxation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:55–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malghem J, Maldague B (1989) Depth insufficiency of the proximal trochlear groove on lateral radiographs of the knee. Radiology 170:507–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merchant AC, Mercer RL, Jacobsen RH, Cool CR (1974) Roentgenographic analysis of patellofemoral congruence. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 56:1391–1396Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nikku R, Nietosvaara Y, Kallio PE, Aalto K, Michelsson JE (1997) Operative versus closed treatment of primary dislocation of the patella. Similar 2-year results in 125 randomized patients. Acta Orthop Scand 68:419–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panni AS, Vasso M, Cerciello S (2013) Acute patellar dislocation. What to do? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:275–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Remy F, Chantelot C, Fontaine C, Demondion X, Migaud H, Gougeon F (1998) Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility in radiographic diagnosis and classification of femoral trochlear dysplasia. Surg Radiol Anat 20:285–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shih YF, Bull AM, Amis AA (2004) The cartilaginous and osseous geometry of the femoral trochlear groove. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 12:300–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith TO, Cogan A, Patel S, Shakokani M, Toms AP, Donell ST (2013) The intra- and inter-rater reliability of X-ray radiological measurements for patellar instability. Knee 20:133–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith TO, Davies L, Toms AP, Hing CB, Donell ST (2011) The reliability and validity of radiological assessment for patellar instability. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol 40:399–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vainionpaa S, Laasonen E, Patiala H, Rusanen M, Rokkannen P (1986) Acute dislocation of the patella. Clinical, radiographic and operative findings in 64 consecutive cases. Acta Orthop Scand 57:331–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Grand Rapids Medical Education PartnersGrand RapidsUSA

Personalised recommendations