Popliteal surface axis was perfectly correlated with PCA and TEA for anteversion measurements (p
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study aims to investigate the usability and reliability of our new axis in a three-dimensional modelling work and demonstrate if it is a reproducible method for anteversion measurement that sufficiently correlates with other computed tomography (CT)-derived gold standards including transepicondylar axis (TEA) and posterior condylar axis (PCA).Patients and methods: Three-dimensional solid models were derived from left femoral CT data of 100 participants (50 males, 50 females; mean age 57 years; range, 21 to 86).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The newly proposed popliteal surface axis (PSA) was compared with TEA and PCA in terms of anteversion measurement on these solid models.Results: Popliteal surface axis was found as a reproducible reference axis in our study as it could be measured in 99% of our sample.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Popliteal surface axis was perfectly correlated with PCA and TEA for anteversion measurements (p
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to investigate the usability and reliability of our new axis in a three-dimensional modelling work and demonstrate if it is a reproducible method for anteversion measurement that sufficiently correlates with other computed tomography (CT)-derived gold standards including transepicondylar axis (TEA) and posterior condylar axis (PCA).Patients and methods: Three-dimensional solid models were derived from left femoral CT data of 100 participants (50 males, 50 females; mean age 57 years; range, 21 to 86). The newly proposed popliteal surface axis (PSA) was compared with TEA and PCA in terms of anteversion measurement on these solid models.Results: Popliteal surface axis was found as a reproducible reference axis in our study as it could be measured in 99% of our sample. The mean value of PSA based anteversion was (-) 1.8° which was 10.7° and 4.4° for PCA and TEA, respectively. Popliteal surface axis was perfectly correlated with PCA and TEA for anteversion measurements (p
🔖
Cite This Article
AKMAN, A., DEMİRKAN, A. F., YÖRÜKOĞLU, A. Ç., AKKOYUNLU, N. S. (2022). The Popliteal Surface Axis May Define Hip Anteversion. Joint diseases and related surgery, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1, 28–33. https://ajindex.com/articles/559278
Murphy SB, Simon SR, Kijewski PK, Wilkinson RH, Griscom NT. Femoral anteversion. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1987;69:1169-76.
Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke TD. The anatomy and functional axes of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1987;69:873-80.
Griffin FM, Math K, Scuderi GR, Insall JN, Poilvache PL. Anatomy of the epicondyles of the distal femur: MRI analysis of normal knees. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:354-9. Snell RS. The lower limb. In: Snell RS, editor. Clinical anatomy by regions. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer (Health)/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1990. p. 549-68. Atik OŞ. Is there something new and interesting in my article? Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2019;30:69. Kingsley PC, Olmsted KL. A study to determine the angle of anteversion of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1948;30:745-51. Reikerås O, Bjerkreim I, Kolbenstvedt A. Anteversion of the acetabulum and femoral neck in normals and in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;54:18-23.
Sugano N, Noble PC, Kamaric E. A comparison of alternative methods of measuring femoral anteversion. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998;22:610-4. Reikerås O, Høiseth A, Reigstad A, Fönstelien E. Femoral neck angles: a specimen study with special regard to bilateral differences. Acta Orthop Scand 1982;53:775-9.
Hoaglund FT, Low WD. Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and Hong Kong Chinese. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980;152:10-6.
Koerner JD, Patel NM, Yoon RS, Sirkin MS, Reilly MC, Liporace FA. Femoral version of the general population: does “normal” vary by gender or ethnicity? J Orthop Trauma 2013;27:308-11.
Chantarapanich N, Rojanasthien S, Chernchujit B, Mahaisavariya B, Karunratanakul K, Chalermkarnnon P, et al. 3D CAD/reverse engineering technique for assessment of Thai morphology: Proximal femur and acetabulum. J Orthop Sci 2017;22:703-9.
Akalın Y, Ozçelik A, Köse N, Seber S. Rotational alignment of the lower extremity in adults: no relationship with osteoarthritis of the knee was proved. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2011;22:75-80.
Arima J, Whiteside LA, McCarthy DS, White SE. Femoral rotational alignment, based on the anteroposterior axis, in total knee arthroplasty in a valgus knee. A technical note. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1995;77:1331-4.
Wright SJ, Boymans TA, Grimm B, Miles AW, Kessler O. Strong correlation between the morphology of the proximal femur and the geometry of the distal femoral trochlea. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014;22:2900-10. Ma