Advertisement

MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY

, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 29–34 | Cite as

A study of anatomy of distal femur pertaining to total knee replacement: an analysis, conclusions and recommendations

  • K. Kumar
  • D. Sharma
Original Article
  • 222 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Multiple landmarks including the transepicondylar axis (TEA), posterior condylar axis (PCA) and anterior trochlear line (TL) have been used to set up the femoral component rotation, but each is faced with its own practical obstacle that limits its usage. Also a common practice is to set the femoral component rotation at 3° external rotation to PCA and valgus resection angle at 5°–7° to anatomical axis of femur. For the reason that the anatomy of each knee is different, it may not be justified to practice such a set protocol in all cases. The aim of the study was to compare the anatomical landmarks used to set up the femoral component rotation and to study the variability in the different anatomical relationships relevant to total knee replacement.

Materials and methods

The study had 52 patients (94 knees) with grade IV osteoarthritis. Full-length lower limb scanogram and 1 mm cross-sectional cuts of distal femur were taken. aTEA, sTEA, PCL, TL, CTA, PCA, TLA and valgus angles were taken for all knees.

Results

aTEA is identifiable in all cases but sTEA in only 59 knees (62.77%). Correspondingly, CTA is calculable in all knees and PCA in 62.77% cases. Mean CTA and mean PCA were 5.4° ± 1.88° SD and 0.71° ± 1.95° SD, respectively. Mean angle between aTEA and sTEA was 4.88. TL is a line difficult to draw because of high incidence of anterior osteophytes, making CTA a more reliable parameter than TLA. Mean TLA was 10.31° ± 3.52° SD. Mean valgus resection angle was 4.86° ± 2.53° SD. Gender- or side-based differences in any of these values were not statistically different.

Conclusions

Using aTEA or sTEA can make a big difference in femoral component rotation; therefore, whether aTEA or sTEA should be used needs to be further investigated. CTA, PCA and valgus resection angle need to be individually calculated for each knee. Use of TLA is not recommended.

Keywords

aTEA sTEA CTA PCA Valgus resection angle Rotational malalignment 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

References

  1. 1.
    Miller MC, Berger RA, Patrella AJ, Karmas A, Rubash HE (2001) Optimizing femoral component rotation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asano T, Akagi M, Nakamura T (2005) The functional flexion–extension axis of the knee corresponds to the surgical epicondylar axis. In vivo analysis using a biplanar image-matching technique. J Arthroplasty 20(8):1060–1067CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yoshino N, Takai S, Ohtsuki Y, Hirasawa Y (2001) Computed tomography measurement of the surgical and clinical transepicondylar axis of the distal femur in osteoarthritic knees. J. Arthroplast 16(4):493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mullaji AB, Sharma AK, Marawar SV, Kohli AF, Singh DP (2009) Distal femoral rotational axes in Indian knees. J Orthop Surg 17(2):166–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shon HC, Choi ES, Kim YM, Kim DS, Park KJ (2012) Femoral component rotation of total knee arthroplasty in Korean subjects: a study using grand piano sign and computed tomography. J Korean Orthop Assoc 47(6):432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang Guo-liang LV, Tie-gang Zhao Jian-min (2012) The measurement and clinical significance for the posterior condylar angle among normal mongolians. J Inn Mongolia Med Coll 4:013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aglietti P, Sensi L, Ciardullo A (2008) Rotational position of femoral and tibial component in TKA using the femoral transepicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(11):2751–2755CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yau WP, Chiu KY, Tang WM (2007) Coronal bowing of the femur and tibia in Chinese: its incidence and effects on total knee arthroplasty planning. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 15(1):32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas S, Macro Z, Marius S, Jose R (2006) Reproducibility of measurement of femoral component rotation after total knee arthroplasty using computer tomography. J Arthroplast 21(5):744–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Restrepo C, Hozack WJ, Orozco F, Parvizi J (2008) Accuracy of femoral rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty using computer assisted navigation. Comput Aided Surg 13(3):167–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Won YY, Cui WQ, Baek MH, Yun TB, Han SH (2007) An additional reference axis for determining rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 22(7):1049–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee CY, Huang TW, Peng KT, Lee MS, Hsu RWW et al (2015) Variability of distal femoral valgus resection angle in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis and genu varum deformity: radiographic study in an ethnic Asian population. Biomed J 38(4):350–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsESIC Medical College and HospitalFaridabadIndia

Personalised recommendations