Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 35, Issue 12, pp 1799–1803 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove distance: normal values for males and females

  • Salil PanditEmail author
  • Chris Frampton
  • Julian Stoddart
  • Tim Lynskey
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to report normal values of the tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove distance (TTTG) in males and females and assess the reliability of MRI in measuring TTTG.

Methods

Patients presenting with a suspected meniscus injury without any patellofemoral or ligamentous instability, and arthroscopically normal cruciate ligaments and patellofemoral joints were included in the study. K-PACS© was used for MRI analysis and was performed by three observers blinded to each others’ measurements.

Results

One hundred patients (57 males, 43 females) were recruited from 2006–2010. The mean TTTG in males was 9.91 mm (95% CI 8.9–10.8 mm) and in females 10.04 mm (95% CI 8.9–11.1). The coefficient of variation was <10% for both intra and inter-observer analysis.

Conclusions

The normal TTTG distance is 10 ± 1 mm with MRI being a reliable method of measurement. Literature supports a high degree of variability in reporting TTTG. This study establishes normal TTTG values, which will help in the assessment and treatment of patellofemoral disorders.

Keywords

Patellar Tendon Tibial Tuberosity Patellofemoral Joint Knee Arthroscopy Trochlear Dysplasia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Dejour H, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Guier C (1994) Factors of patellar instability: an anatomic radiographic study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2(1):19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagamine R, Miura H, Inoue Y, Tanaka K, Urabe K, Okamoto Y, Nishizawa M, Iwamoto Y (1997) Malposition of the tibial tubercle during flexion in knees with patellofemoral arthritis. Skeletal Radiol 26(10):597–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wittstein JR, Bartlett EC, Easterbrook J, Byrd JC (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of patellofemoral malalignment. Arthroscopy 22(6):643–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alemparte J, Ekdahl M, Burnier L, Hernández R, Cardemil A, Cielo R, Danilla S (2007) Patellofemoral evaluation with radiographs and computed tomography scans in 60 knees of asymptomatic subjects. Arthroscopy 23(2):170–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lustig S, Servien E, Aït Si Selmi T, Neyret P (2006) Factors affecting reliability of TT-TG measurements before and after medialization: A CT-scan study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 92(5):429–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saudan M, Fritschy D (2000) AT-TG (anterior tuberosity-trochlear groove): interobserver variability in CT measurements in subjects with patellar instability. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 86(3):250–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wittstein JR, O’Brien SD, Vinson EN, Garrett WE Jr (2009) MRI evaluation of anterior knee pain: predicting response to nonoperative treatment. Skeletal Radiol 38(9):895–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hendricks WA, Robey KW (Ann.91936) The sampling distribution of the coefficient of variation. Math Statist 129–132Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goutallier D, Bernageau J, Lecudonnec B (1978) The measurement of the tibial tuberosity. Patella groove distanced technique and results (author’s transl). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 64(5):423–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wagenaar FC, Koëter S, Anderson PG, Wymenga AB (2007) Conventional radiography cannot replace CT scanning in detecting tibial tubercle lateralisation. Knee 14(1):51–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shakespeare D, Fick D (2005) Patellar instability-can the TT-TG distance be measured clinically? Knee 12(3):201–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dejour H, Walch G, Neyret P, Adeleine P (1990) La dysplasie de la trochlee femorale. Rev Chir Orthop 76:45–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith TO, Davies L, Toms AP, Hing CB, Donell ST (2010) The reliability and validity of radiological assessment for patellar instability. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoettle PB, Zanetti M, Seifert B, Pfirrmann CW, Fucentese SF, Romero J (2006) The tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance; a comparative study between CT and MRI scanning. Knee 13(1):26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stäubli HU, Dürrenmatt U, Porcellini B, Rauschning W (1999) Anatomy and surface geometry of the patellofemoral joint in the axial plane. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81(3):452–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maquet P (1976) Advancement of the tibial tuberosity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 115:225–230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Utting MR, Mulford JS, Eldridge JD (2008) A prospective evaluation of trochleoplasty for the treatment of patellofemoral dislocation and instability. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(2):180–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schöttle PB, Fucentese SF, Pfirrmann C, Bereiter H, Romero J (2005) Trochleaplasty for patellar instability due to trochlear dysplasia: A minimum 2-year clinical and radiological follow-up of 19 knees. Acta Orthop 76(5):693–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeJour D, Saggin P (2010) The sulcus deepening trochleoplasty—the Lyon’s procedure. Int Orthop 34:311–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feller JA, Amis AA, Andrish JT, Arendt EA, Erasmus PJ, Powers CM (2007) Surgical biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint. Arthroscopy 23(5):542–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salil Pandit
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chris Frampton
    • 2
  • Julian Stoddart
    • 1
  • Tim Lynskey
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopaedic SurgeryTaranaki Base HospitalNew PlymouthNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsOtago Medical SchoolOtagoNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations