Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 2155–2166 | Cite as

Wider femoral and mediolaterally narrower tibial components are required for total knee arthroplasty in Turkish patients

  • Abdulhamit MisirEmail author
  • Kadir Ilker Yildiz
  • Turan Bilge Kizkapan
KNEE

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the knee morphologic parameters in the Turkish population, compare them with known data, and identify new morphologic parameters.

Methods

Magnetic resonance (MR) images of 1000 healthy subjects aged 18–50 years were included. One orthopedic surgeon and one experienced musculoskeletal radiologist reviewed MR images and measured 22 morphologic parameters. Sex and side differences were evaluated. Correlations between age and measurement parameters were assessed. The measured parameters were compared with known data. Femoral and tibial condylar height differences were identified.

Results

A strong correlation was found among regarding all measurement parameters (p = 0.000 and k > 0.985 for all measurements) by both observers. A significant difference between the female and male subjects regarding the measurement parameters (p = 0.000) was found, except for the tibial coronal slope, posterior condylar angle (PCA), medial and lateral tibial slopes (MTS and LTS), and medial plateau depth. No measurement parameter was significantly correlated with age (n.s.). The femur surface ratio in male and female subjects was 1.29 ± 1.04 and 1.28 ± 1.12, respectively (n.s.). The tibial plateau aspect ratio was 61.4 ± 1.09 in males and 59.8 ± 1.57 in females (p = 0.004). The mean medial and lateral femoral condylar cartilage and bone height differences were 3.3 ± 1.1 and 3.1 ± 0.9 mm, respectively. The mean medial and lateral tibial condylar cartilage and bone height differences were 2.3 ± 0.3 and 1.6 ± 0.1 mm, respectively.

Conclusion

Compared to current designs, wider femoral and mediolaterally narrower tibial components are needed to provide well-fitting prosthesis and improve functional outcomes, especially in women. The data on femoral and tibial condylar height differences will be useful for future research on component design. In the clinical practice, the components developed based on these findings will have a substantial effect on postoperative outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Level of evidence

II.

Keywords

Component Femoral surface ratio Height difference Tibial aspect ratio Anthropometry Total knee arthroplasty 

Notes

Funding

This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Abdulhamit Misir, Kadir Ilker Yildiz, and Turan Bilge Kizkapan declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Metin Sabancı Baltalimanı Kemik Hastalıkları Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi institutional review board approved the study protocol (Approval date/number 20.09.2017/15).

References

  1. 1.
    Berger RA, Rubash HE, Seel MJ, Thompson WH, Crossett LH (1993) Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:40–47Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheng FB, Ji XF, Lai Y, Feng JC, Zheng WX, Sun YF, Fu YW, Li YQ (2009) Three dimensional morphometry of the knee to design the total knee arthroplasty for Chinese population. Knee 16:341–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dai Y, Scuderi GR, Penninger C, Bischoff JE, Rosenberg A (2014) Increased shape and size offerings of femoral components improve fit during total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:2931–2940CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fan L, Xu T, Li X, Zan P, Li G (2017) Morphologic features of the distal femur and tibia plateau in Southeastern Chinese population: a cross-sectional study. Medicine 96:1–5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freisinger GM, Schmitt LC, Wanamaker AB (2017) Tibiofemoral osteoarthritis and varus—valgus laxity. J Knee Surg 30:440–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Griffin FM, Math K, Scuderi GR, Insall JN, Poilvache PL (2000) Anatomy of the epicondyles of the distal femur: MRI analysis of normal knees. J Arthroplasty 15:354–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffin M, Insall JN, Scuderi GR (1998) The posterior condylar angle in osteoarthritic knees. J Arthroplasty 13:812–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall FM (1975) Radiographic diagnosis and accuracy in knee joint effusions. Radiology 115:49–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Han H, Oh S, Chang CB, Kang SB (2016) Anthropometric difference of the knee on MRI according to gender and age groups. Surg Radiol Anat 38:203–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hashemi J, Chandrashekar N, Gill B, Beynnon BD, Slauterbeck JR, Schutt RC, Mansouri H, Dabezies E (2008) The geometry of the tibial plateau and its influence on the biomechanics of the tibiofemoral joint. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:2724–2734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hitt K, Shurman JR, Greene K, McCarthy J, Moskal J, Hoeman T, Mont MA (2003) Anthropometric measurements of the human knee: Correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang KT, Koh YG, Son J, Kwon OR, Lee JS, Kwon SK (2018) Influence of increased posterior tibial slope in total knee arthroplasty on knee joint biomechanics: a computational simulation study. J Arthroplasty 33:572–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16:494–502CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim TK, Philips M, Bhandari M, Watson J, Malhotra R (2017) What differences in morphologic features of the knee exist among patients of various races? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:170–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobayashi H, Akamatsu Y, Kumagai K, Kusayama Y, Aratake M, Saito T (2015) Is the surgical epicondylar axis the center of rotation in the osteoarthritic Knee? J Arthroplasty 30:479–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koh YJ, Nam JH, Chung HS, Kim HJ, Chun HJ, Kang KT (2018) Gender differences in morphology exist in posterior condylar offsets of the knee in Korean population. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5259-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwak DS, Surendran S, Pengatteeri YH, Park SE, Choi KN, Gopinathan P, Han SH, Han CW (2007) Morphometry of the proximal tibia to design the tibial component of total knee arthroplasty for the Korean population. Knee 14:295–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li P, Tsai TY, Li JS, Zhang Y, Kwon YM, Rubash HE, Li G (2014) Morphological measurement of the knee: race and sex effects. Acta Orthop Belg 80:260–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mahoney OM, Kinsey T (2010) Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and clinical consequences. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:1115–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McNamara CA, Hanano AA, Villa JM, Huaman GM, Patel PD, Suarez JC (2018) Anthropometric measurements of knee joints in the hispanic population. J Arthroplasty 33:2640–2646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muehleman C, Bareither D, Huch K, Cole AA, Kuettner KE (1997) Prevalance of degenerative morphological changes in the joints of lower extremity. Osteoarthr Cartil 5(1):23–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thilak J, George M (2016) Patient—implant dimension mismatch in total knee arthroplasty: is it worth worrying? An Indian scenario. Indian J Orthop 50:512–517CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang Y, Yang T, Zeng C, Wei J, Xie D, Yang YH, Long HZ, Xu B, Qian YX, Lei GH (2017) Association between tibial plateau slopes and anterior cruciate ligament injury: a meta-analysis. Arthroscopy 33:1248–1259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinberg DS, Williamson DFK, Gebhart JJ, Knapik DM, Voos JE (2017) Differences in medial and lateral posterior tibial slope. Am J Sports Med 45:106–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wernecke GC, Seeto BG, Chen DB, MacDessi SJ (2016) Posterior condylar cartilage thickness and posterior condylar offset of the femur: a magnetic resonance imaging study. J Orthop Surg 24:12–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yip DKH, Zhu YH, Chiu KY, Ng TP (2004) Distal rotational alignment of the Chinese femur and its relevance in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:613–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Şanlıurfa Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji BölümüŞanlıurfaTurkey
  2. 2.Metin Sabancı Baltalimanı Kemik Hastalıkları Eğitim ve Araştırma HastanesiIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Bursa Çekirge Devlet HastanesiBursaTurkey

Personalised recommendations