| Literature DB >> 30967701 |
Bhanu Awasthi1, Sunil Kumar Raina2, Vivek Negi1, Narvir Singh Chauhan3, Sandeep Kalia1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A mismatch between the prosthesis size and bone may result in a number of complications. Keeping this in view, it is essential to analyze the morphological differences of the knee observed across various ethnic groups to improve the performance of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The current study was aimed at studying the computed tomography (CT) profile of distal femur in Indian population and evaluates it morphologically.Entities:
Keywords: Helical computed tomography; lower end femur; morphometric; study
Year: 2019 PMID: 30967701 PMCID: PMC6415551 DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_136_17
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Orthop ISSN: 0019-5413 Impact factor: 1.251
Figure 1Different distal femoral parameters
Distribution of morphometric profile in males and females
| No of Pt. | Male 48 (77.4%) | Female 14 (22.6%) | Statistical significance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Median | SD | IQR | Mean | Median | SD | IQR | ||||
| ML | 72.74 | 73.2 | 4.45 | 4.75 | 63.59 | 64.55 | 2.61 | 2.82 | 5.67 | 0.00 | Sig. |
| AP | 49.62 | 49.05 | 3.86 | 2.67 | 45.11 | 45.45 | 4.4 | 2.37 | 3.72 | 0.00 | Sig. |
| ALCH | 17.53 | 17.55 | 2.72 | 2.35 | 14.63 | 13.5 | 3.42 | 4.05 | 3.526 | 0.00 | Sig |
| AMCH | 9.82 | 9.7 | 1.88 | 1.82 | 8.92 | 8.7 | 2.49 | 0.57 | 1.55 | 0.12 | Non Sig. |
| Aspect Ratio | 1.47 | 1.47 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 1.42 | 1.42 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 1.57 | 0.12 | Non Sig. |
Graph 1Distribution of morphometric profile in males and females
The distribution of morphometric profile with age
| Age group | No. of PT (%) | ML dimension | AP dimension | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Median | SD | IQR | Mean | Median | SD | IQR | ||
| 18-30 | 22 (35) | 72.82 | 74.33 | 4.81 | 1 | 51.6 | 50.7 | 4.17 | 3.42 |
| 31-45 | 18 (29) | 70.74 | 71.4 | 5.07 | 3 | 47.2 | 47.4 | 3.66 | 1.9 |
| 46-60 | 17 (27) | 68.39 | 66.1 | 6.41 | 5.8 | 46.5 | 46.9 | 3.95 | 1.2 |
| >60 | 5 (8) | 69.24 | 65.9 | 5.66 | 9 | 47.7 | 47.7 | 2.35 | 2.1 |
| 3.64 | 6.74 | ||||||||
| 0.01 | 0.00 | ||||||||
| Statistical Significance | Significant | Significant | |||||||
The distribution of morphometric profile with age
| Age group | No of PT(%) | ALCH | AMCH | Aspect ratio | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Med | SD | IQR | Mean | Med | SD | IQR | Mean | Med | SD | IQR | ||
| 18-30 | 22 (35%) | 17.28 | 17.6 | 3.35 | 2.55 | 10.1 | 10.6 | 1.97 | 1.4 | 1.41 | 1.44 | 0.1 | 0.04 |
| 31-45 | 18 (29%) | 16.62 | 16.9 | 2.85 | 1.6 | 9.41 | 9.2 | 2.42 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1.48 | 0.09 | 0.08 |
| 46-60 | 17 (27%) | 16.22 | 16.7 | 3.3 | 1.62 | 8.86 | 8.7 | 1.16 | 0.8 | 1.47 | 1.45 | 0.14 | 0.11 |
| >60 | 5 (8%) | 18.28 | 18.7 | 2.03 | 0.4 | 10.9 | 9.4 | 2.87 | 3.3 | 1.45 | 1.45 | 0.1 | 0.05 |
| 0.74 | 1.95 | 2.20 | |||||||||||
| 0.53 | 0.13 | 0.09 | |||||||||||
| Statistical Significance | non significant | non significant | non significant | ||||||||||
Graph 2Distribution of morphometric profile with age
Comparison of the morphological data with those reported in literature
| Asian | Caucasian | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | ML | AP | Authors | ML | AP |
| Vaidya | 61.09 (male) | Lonner | 76.9 (male) | 62.27 (male) | |
| 55.58 (female) | 67.49 (female) | 56.32 (female) | |||
| Cheng | 74.4±2.9 (male) | 66.6±2.4 (male) | Yue | 74.6±3.9 (male) | 59.6±3.2 (male) |
| 66.8±3.11 (female) | 61.0±24.6 (female) | 65.4±1.4 (female) | 55.4±2.8 (female) | ||
| Ha and Na, 2012 | 74.8 (male) | 66.3 (male) | |||
| 68.2 (female) | 60.8 (female) | ||||
| Yue | 72.7±3.8 (male) | 56.5±2.5 (male) | |||
| 64.4±2.6 (female) | 52.8±2.6 (female) | ||||
| Our study | 72.74±4.45 (male) | 49.62±3.86 (male) | |||
| 63.592.61 (female) | 45.11±4.4 (female) | ||||
ML=Mediolateral, AP=Anteroposterior