| Literature DB >> 29081848 |
R K Baruah1, S Kumar1, S V Harikrishnan1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physiological range of tibiofemoral angle (TFA) is poorly defined and may lead to unnecessary therapeutic interventions. Studies on TFA developmental pattern suggest that racial and ethnic differences are present; children in north-east India who have not yet been studied need to be evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of clinical TFA, intermalleolar distance and intercondylar distance in 1020 healthy north-east Indian children aged from 2 to 18 years was done. Height, weight and body mass index were also recorded.Entities:
Keywords: clinical tibiofemoral angle; genu valgum; goniometer; inter malleolar distance; intercondylar distance; north-east indian children
Year: 2017 PMID: 29081848 PMCID: PMC5643927 DOI: 10.1302/1863-2548.11.170047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Child Orthop ISSN: 1863-2521 Impact factor: 1.548
Fig. 1(1) Goniometer with expandable arms, (2) Vernier calliper.
Fig. 2Photograph showing position of child at the time of taking clinical measurements with the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), centre of patella and midpoint of ankle joint marked.
Fig. 3Measurement of the tibiofemoral angle (TFA) of the child using goniometer with expandable arms.
Fig. 4Measurement of intermalleolar distance of the child using Vernier calliper with the femoral condyles touching each other.
Age-wise distribution of tibiofemoral angle (TFA) and intermalleolar distance (IMD) of male and female children in the study.
| Age (yrs) | TFA (°) | IMD (cm) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | ± SD | Min | Max | 95% confidence interval | Males (mean) | Females (mean) | p-value | Mean | ± SD | ||
| 2 | 0.82 | 2.70 | -5 | 6 | 0.13 | 1.50 | 0.19 | 1.49 | 0.06 | 0.78 | 0.71 |
| 3 | 3.26 | 1.10 | 1 | 6 | 2.98 | 3.54 | 3.01 | 3.53 | 0.06 | 1.21 | 0.46 |
| 4 | 4.15 | 2.25 | 0 | 8 | 3.58 | 4.72 | 3.80 | 4.50 | 0.22 | 1.83 | 0.68 |
| 5 | 5.28 | 2.16 | 0 | 9 | 4.73 | 5.83 | 5.40 | 5.14 | 0.64 | 1.79 | 1.04 |
| 6 | 6.43 | 1.33 | 4 | 10 | 6.10 | 6.77 | 6.42 | 6.44 | 0.95 | 1.80 | 0.70 |
| 7 | 8.55 | 1.06 | 6 | 10 | 8.28 | 8.82 | 8.38 | 8.81 | 0.11 | 2.17 | 0.47 |
| 8 | 7.16 | 1.35 | 5 | 11 | 6.82 | 7.50 | 7.48 | 6.85 | 0.06 | 1.94 | 0.67 |
| 9 | 6.44 | 1.17 | 4 | 9 | 6.14 | 6.73 | 6.57 | 6.30 | 0.36 | 1.87 | 0.61 |
| 10 | 5.95 | 1.59 | 2 | 10 | 5.55 | 6.35 | 5.90 | 6.00 | 0.80 | 1.95 | 0.75 |
| 11 | 5.40 | 2.19 | 0 | 11 | 4.84 | 5.96 | 5.75 | 5.05 | 0.21 | 2.00 | 1.08 |
| 12 | 4.84 | 2.20 | 0 | 11 | 4.28 | 5.39 | 4.85 | 4.81 | 0.95 | 1.93 | 0.95 |
| 13 | 4.93 | 2.20 | 0 | 9 | 4.37 | 5.48 | 4.35 | 5.34 | 0.08 | 1.56 | 0.71 |
| 14 | 4.69 | 2.21 | 0 | 9 | 4.13 | 5.25 | 4.33 | 4.95 | 0.26 | 1.45 | 0.78 |
| 15 | 5.63 | 2.22 | 1 | 11 | 5.07 | 6.20 | 5.78 | 5.49 | 0.60 | 1.58 | 0.81 |
| 16 | 4.87 | 2.50 | 0 | 9 | 4.24 | 5.51 | 4.56 | 5.19 | 0.33 | 1.50 | 0.83 |
| 17 | 3.68 | 1.55 | 1 | 7 | 3.29 | 4.08 | 3.58 | 3.79 | 0.60 | 1.36 | 0.79 |
| 18 | 3.18 | 1.18 | 2 | 8 | 2.88 | 3.48 | 3.02 | 3.33 | 0.31 | 1.23 | 0.65 |
Fig. 6Determination of intra-observer variability.