Abstract
Background
Little is known about the anatomical variations of the trochlear notch angle, nor do we know whether the cartilaginous layer modifies the trochlear bony contour. Our aim was to assess the variability of the bony and cartilaginous trochlear notch angles.
Materials and methods
We assessed 78 healthy elbows (39 patients, 19 females and 20 males) with a mean age of 28 years (range 21–32). High-definition MRI coronal scans at the level of the flexion–extension axis were performed. The cartilage thickness, the notch angle, and trochlear width were calculated at the level of the deepest point of the trochlear sulcus, the edge of the lateral and medial ridge. Patient height was used as indirect measurement of humerus length. Pearson correlation and Student’s t tests were performed.
Results
Mean cartilage thickness was 1.00 mm (range 0.62–1.83), with significant differences between the medial trochlear ridge and the other landmarks. The notch angle ranged from 124° to 156° (mean 142°) with no differences between the bony and cartilage layers. Trochlear width ranged from 1.57 to 2.75 cm (mean 2.24) and correlated with humerus length. No correlation emerged between the trochlear notch angle, trochlear width, or humerus length. The only significant difference between sexes was the width value, with a wider trochlea in males.
Conclusions
The trochlear notch angle varies considerably, determining anatomical variations in trochlear shape which ranges from less concave to more concave types. Moreover, the cartilaginous layer does not modify this angle at the level examined. These findings may be relevant to anatomical implant design for distal humerus hemiarthroplasty.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Goldfarb CA, Patterson JM, Sutter M, Krauss M, Steffen JA, Galatz L (2012) Elbow radiographic anatomy: measurement techniques and normative data. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(9):1236–1246. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.10.026
Graichen H, Springer V, Flaman T et al (2000) Validation of high-resolution water-excitation magnetic resonance imaging for quantitative assessment of thin cartilage layers. Osteoarthr Cartil 8(2):106–114
Schub DL, Frisch NC, Bachmann KR, Winalski C, Saluan PM (2013) Mapping of cartilage depth in the knee and elbow for use in osteochondral autograft procedures. Am J Sports Med 41(4):903–907. doi:10.1177/0363546513475343
Lapner M, Willing R, Johnson JA, King GJ (2014) The effect of distal humeral hemiarthroplasty on articular contact of the elbow. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 29(5):537–544. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.03.010
Willing R, Lapner M, King GJ, Johnson JA (2014) In vitro assessment of the contact mechanics of reverse-engineered distal humeral hemiarthroplasty prostheses. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 29(9):990–996. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.08.015
Mall G, Hubig M, Büttner A, Kuznik J, Penning R, Graw M (2001) Sex determination and estimation of stature from the long bones of the arm. Forensic Sci Int 117(1–2):23–30
Muñoz JI, Liñares-Iglesias M, Suárez-Peñaranda JM et al (2001) Stature estimation from radiographically determined long bone length in a Spanish population sample. J Forensic Sci 46(2):363–366
Desai SJ, Deluce S, Johnson JA et al (2014) An anthropometric study of the distal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(4):463–469. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.026
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the radiology technician Edoardo Avallone for the magnetic resonance images and Italo Nofroni, Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases “Sapienza” University of Rome, for the statistical analyses.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Disclaimer: The study was approved by the IRB of the “Sapienza” University of Rome, Italy: Rif. 3624 Prot. 206015.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giannicola, G., Scacchi, M., Sedati, P. et al. Anatomical variations of the trochlear notch angle: MRI analysis of 78 elbows. Musculoskelet Surg 100 (Suppl 1), 89–95 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-016-0407-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-016-0407-2