Skip to main content
Log in

Phenotyping of hip–knee–ankle angle in young non-osteoarthritic knees provides better understanding of native alignment variability

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

There is a lack of knowledge about the native coronal knee alignment in 3D. The currently used classification system (neutral, valgus and varus) oversimplifies the coronal knee alignment. The purpose of this study was therefore (1) to investigate the coronal knee alignment in non-osteoarthritic knees using 3D-reconstructed CT images and (2) to introduce a classification system for the overall knee alignment based on phenotypes.

Methods

The hospital registry was searched for patients younger than 45 years and older than 16, who received a CT according to the Imperial Knee Protocol. Patients with prosthesis, osteoarthritis, fractures or injury of the collateral ligaments were excluded. Finally, 308 non-osteoarthritic knees of 160 patients remained (102 males and 58 females, mean age ± standard deviation (SD) 30 ± 7 years). The overall lower limb alignment was defined as the hip–knee–ankle angle (HKA), which is formed by lines connecting the centers of the femoral head, the knee and the talus. The angle was measured using a commercially planning software (KneePLAN 3D, Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). Descriptive statistics, such as means, ranges, and measures of variance (e.g., standard deviations) are presented. Based on these results, the currently used classification system was evaluated and a new system, based on phenotypes, was introduced. These phenotypes consist of a phenotype-specific mean value (a HKA value) and cover a range of ± 1.5° from this mean (e.g., 183° ± 1.5°). The mean values represent 3° increments of the angle starting from the overall mean value (mean HKA = 180°; 3° increments = 183° and 177°, 186° and 174°). The distribution of these limb phenotypes was assessed.

Results

The overall mean HKA was 179.7° ± 2.9° varus and values ranged from 172.6° varus to 187.1° valgus. The mean HKA values for male and female were 179.2° ± 2.8° and 180.5° ± 2.8°, respectively, which implied a significant gender difference (r2 = 0.23). The most common limb phenotype in males was NEUHKA0° (36.4%), followed by VARHKA3° (29.2%) and VALHKA3° (23.1%). The most common limb phenotype in females was NEUHKA0° (36.4%), followed by VALHKA3° (22.1%) and VARHKA3° (15.0%).

Conclusion

The measurements using 3D-reconstructed CT images confirmed the great variability of the overall lower limb alignment in non-osteoarthritic knees. However, the currently used classification system (neutral, varus, valgus) oversimplifies the coronal alignment and therefore the introduced classification system, based on limb phenotypes, should be used. This will help to better understand individual coronal knee alignment.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CT:

Computed tomography

FMA:

Femoral mechanical angle

HKA:

Hip–knee–ankle angle

HDP:

Hydroxymethane diphosphonate

NEU:

Neutral

OA:

Osteoarthritis

SD:

Standard deviation

SPECT:

Single-photon emission computed tomography

TMA:

Tibial mechanical angle

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

VAL:

Valgus

VAR:

Varus

References

  1. Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Victor J (2012) The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:45–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooke D, Scudamore A, Li J, Wyss U, Bryant T et al (1997) Axial lower-limb alignment: comparison of knee geometry in normal volunteers and osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthr Cartil 5:39–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eckhoff DG, Bach JM, Spitzer VM, Reinig KD, Bagur MM et al (2005) Three-dimensional mechanics, kinematics, and morphology of the knee viewed in virtual reality. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87(Suppl 2):71–80

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gbejuade HO, White P, Hassaballa M, Porteous AJ, Robinson JR et al (2014) Do long leg supine CT scanograms correlate with weight-bearing full-length radiographs to measure lower limb coronal alignment? Knee 21:549–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Henckel J, Richards R, Lozhkin K, Harris S, Rodriguez y Baena FM et al (2006) Very low-dose computed tomography for planning and outcome measurement in knee replacement. The imperial knee protocol. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88:1513–1518

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hirschmann A, Buck FM, Fucentese SF, Pfirrmann CWA (2015) Upright CT of the knee: the effect of weight-bearing on joint alignment. Eur Radiol 25:3398–3404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirschmann MT, Konala P, Amsler F, Iranpour F, Friederich NF et al (2011) The position and orientation of total knee replacement components: a comparison of conventional radiographs, transverse 2D-CT slices and 3D-CT reconstruction. J Bone Jt Surg Br 93:629–633

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hovinga KR, Lerner AL (2009) Anatomic variations between Japanese and Caucasian populations in the healthy young adult knee joint. J Orthop Res 27:1191–1196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hsu RWW, Himeno S, Coventry MB, Chao EYS (1990) Normal axial alignment of the lower extremity and load-bearing distribution at the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 255:215–227

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jabalameli M, Moghimi J, Yeganeh A, Nojomi M (2015) Parameters of lower extremities alignment view in Iranian adult population. Acta Med Iran 4:122–127

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jenny J-Y, Boeri C, Ballonzoli L (2005) Coronal alignment of the lower limb. Acta Orthop 76:403–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Longstaff LM, Sloan K, Stamp N, Scaddan M, Beaver R (2009) Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arthroplast 24:570–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lotke PA, Ecker ML (1977) Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 59:77–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moreland JR, Bassett LW, Hanker GJ (1987) Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity. J Bone Jt Surg Am 69:745–749

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sailhan F, Jacob L, Hamadouche M (2017) Differences in limb alignment and femoral mechanical-anatomical angles using two dimension versus three dimension radiographic imaging. Int Orthop 41:2009–2016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shetty GM, Mullaji A, Bhayde S, Nha KW, Oh HK (2014) Factors contributing to inherent varus alignment of lower limb in normal Asian adults: role of tibial plateau inclination. Knee 21:544–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Song M-H, Yoo S-H, Kang S-W, Kim Y-J, Park G-T et al (2015) Coronal alignment of the lower limb and the incidence of constitutional varus knee in Korean females. Knee Surg Relat Res 27:49–55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tanaka T, Takayama K, Hashimoto S, Kanzaki N, Hayashi S et al (2017) Radiographic analysis of the lower limbs using the hip–calcaneus line in healthy individuals and in patients with varus knee osteoarthritis. Knee 24:1146–1152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tang WM, Zhu YH, Chiu KY (2000) Axial Alignment of the lower extremity in Chinese adults. J Bone Jt Surg Am 82:1603–1608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Than P, Szuper K, Somoskeöy S, Warta V, Illés T (2012) Geometrical values of the normal and arthritic hip and knee detected with the EOS imaging system. Int Orthop 36:1291–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Cornu O, Bellemans J, Victor J (2017) Bone morphotypes of the varus and valgus knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:393–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moser LB, Hess S, Amsler F, Behrend H, Hirschmann MT (2019) Native non-osteoarthritic knees have a highly variable coronal alignment: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05417-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The statistical analysis was funded by Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael T. Hirschmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research and that institutional approval of the human protocol for this investigation was obtained.

Informed consent

Informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hirschmann, M.T., Hess, S., Behrend, H. et al. Phenotyping of hip–knee–ankle angle in young non-osteoarthritic knees provides better understanding of native alignment variability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27, 1378–1384 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05507-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05507-1

Keywords

Navigation