Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2342–2349 | Cite as

Gender differences in the morphology of the trochlea and the distal femur

  • V. PinskerovaEmail author
  • K. Nemec
  • I. Landor



The objective of this study was to provide a morphologic description of the distal femur and to determine whether there are any gender differences in the shape that might have an important consequence for the design of a femoral component of a total knee prosthesis.


Anthropometric data on the distal femur of 200 normal knees were obtained using two-dimensional MRI measurements. In all 18 parameters of the distal femur were measured including the anteroposterior (AP) dimension of femoral condyles, the mediolateral (ML) width of the distal femur at four levels, and the AP dimension and ML width of the trochlea. The aspect ratios between the AP and ML dimensions were calculated to determine whether there is a shape difference between genders.


The female distal femur is significantly smaller in all measured parameters. The mean AP/ML aspect ratio of the female distal femur is significantly larger (p < 0.05) at all measured ML levels except that of the anterior edge of the anterior chamfer. The AP dimensions of both the medial and lateral trochlea were significantly greater in men (p < 0.001), but AP/ML aspect ratio did not differ between genders.


We have found that although the female distal femur is relatively narrower (larger AP/ML aspect ratio) than the male in three of the four measured levels, there is no significant difference between genders at the level of the anterior edge of the anterior chamfer. It is at this level that it has been suggested that impingement between soft tissues and an overhanging prosthesis is most likely to be painful. Equally, there were no gender-related differences in the shape of the trochlea. These data therefore do not support the provision of narrow femoral components for TKA for women.


Femur Morphometry Gender Gender specific Aspect ratio Total knee arthroplasty 



The authors would like to acknowledge the help they received with the English text from Prof MAR Freeman (Visiting professor, Charles University, Prague) and for the statistical advice from Dr. J Krasensky (Neurological Clinic, General Teaching Hospital, Charles University, Prague). Supported by the project (Ministry of Health, Czech Republic) for conceptual development of research organisation 00064203 (University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic). Supported by the Research programme of Charles University P25/LF1/2.


  1. 1.
    Bellemans J, Carpentier K, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J, Victor J (2010) The John Insall Award. Both morphotype and gender influence the shape of the knee in patients undergoing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:29–36PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booth RE Jr (2006) The gender-specific (female) knee. Orthopedics 29(9):768–769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourne RB, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Mokete L, Guerin J (2007) Influence of patient factors on TKA outcomes at 5 to 11 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:27–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaichankul C, Tanavalee A, Itiravivong P (2011) Anthropometric measurements of knee joints in Thai population: correlation to the sizing of current knee prostheses. Knee 18:5–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng FB, Ji XF, Lai Y, Feng JC, Zheng WX, Sun YF et al (2009) Three dimensional morphometry of the knee to design the total knee arthroplasty for Chinese population. Knee 16:341–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chin KR, Dalury DF, Zurakowski D, Scott RD (2002) Intra-operative measurements of male and female distal femurs during primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 15:213–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke HD, Hentz JG (2008) Restoration of femoral anatomy in TKA with unisex and gender-specific components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2711–2716PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conley S, Rosenberg A, Crowninshield R (2007) The female knee: anatomic variations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(suppl 1):S31–S36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dargel J, Joern WPM, Feiser J, Ivo R, Koebke J (2011) Human knee joint anatomy revisited: morphometry in the light of sex-specific total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(3):346–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gill S, Joshi AB (2001) Long-term results of kinematic condylar knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:355–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guy SP, Farndon MA, Sidhom S, Al-Lami M, Bennett C, London NJ (2012) Gender differences in distal femoral morphology and the role of gender specific implants in total knee replacement: a prospective clinical study. Knee 19(1):28–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hitt K, Shurman JR II, Greene K, McCarthy J, Moskal J, Mont MA, Hoeman T (2003) Anthropomorphic measurements of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(suppl 4):115–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoshino Y, Wang JH, Lorenz S, Fu FH, Tashman S (2012) Gender difference of the femoral kinematics axis location and its relation to anterior cruciate ligament injury: a 3D-CT study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(7):1282–1288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson AJ, Costa CR, Mont MA (2011) Do we need gender-specific total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1852–1858PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim J, Nelson CL, Lotke PA (2004) Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: prevalence of the complication and outcomes of revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1479–1484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koninckx A, Deltour A, Thienpont E (2013) Femoral sizing in total knee arthroplasty is rotation dependant. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2707-5 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee IS, Choi JA, Kim TK, Han I, Lee JW, Kang HS (2006) Reliability analysis of 16-MDCT in preoperative evaluation of total knee arthroplasty and comparison with intraoperative measurements. AJR 186:1778–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li K, Langdale E, Tashman S, Harner C, Zhang X (2012) Gender and condylar differences in distal femur morphometry clarified by automated computer analyse. J Orthop Res 30:686–692PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liebs TR, Herzberg W, Roth-Kroeger AM, Rüther W, Hassenpflug J (2011) Women recover faster than men after standard knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2855–2865PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lim HC, Yoon JY, Kim SJ, Lee JM (2013) Gender differences of the morphology of the distal femur and proximal tibia in a Korean population. Knee 20:26–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lonner JH, Jasko JG, Thomas BS (2008) Anthropomorphic differences between the distal femora of men and women. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2724–2729PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacDonald SJ, Charron KD, Bourne RB, Naudie DD, McCalden RW, Rorabeck CH (2008) The John Insall Award: gender-specific total knee replacement: prospectively collected clinical outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2612–2616PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahfouz M, Fatah EEA, Bowers LS, Scuderi G (2012) Three-dimensional morphology of the knee reveals ethnic differences. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:172–185PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mahoney OM, Kinsey T (2010) Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and clinical consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1115–1121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merchant AC, Arendt EA, Dye SF et al (2008) The female knee—anatomic variations and the female-specific total knee design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:3059–3065PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park JS, Nam DC, Kim DH et al (2012) Measurement of knee morphometrics using MRI: a comparative study between ACL-injured and non-injured knees. Knee Surg Relat Res 24(3):180–185PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poilvache PL, Insall JN, Scuderi GR, Font-Rodriguez DE (1996) Rotational landmarks and sizing of the distal femur in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:35–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rand JA, Ilstrup DM (1991) Survivorship analysis of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:397–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ritter MA, Wing JT, Berend ME, Davis KE, Meding JB (2008) The clinical effect of gender on outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:331–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roberts VI, Esler CN, Harper WM (2007) A 15-year follow-up study of 4,606 primary total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:1452–1456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vaidya SV, Ranawat CS, Aroojis A, Laud NS (2000) Anthropometric measurements to design total knee prostheses for the Indian population. J Arthroplasty 15:79–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van den Heever DJ, Scheffer C, Erasmus P, Dillon E (2012) Classification of gender and race in the distal femur using self organising maps. Knee 19:488–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yan M, Wang J, Wang Y, Zhang J, Yue B, Zeng Y (2014) Gender-based differences in the dimensions of the femoral trochlea and condyles in the Chinese population: correlation to the risk of femoral component overhang. Knee 21:252–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yue B, Varadarajan KM, Ai S, Tang T, Rubash HE, Li G (2011) Gender differences in the knees of Chinese population. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:80–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.1st Orthopaedic Clinic, 1st Faculty of MedicineCharles UniversityPrague 5Czech Republic
  2. 2.Orthopaedic Clinic, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Bulovka HospitalCharles UniversityPrague 8Czech Republic
  3. 3.Prague 4Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations