Jakob Ackermann1, Julian Hasler2, Dimitri Nicolas Graf3, Sandro F Fucentese2, Lazaros Vlachopoulos2. 1. Department of Orthopedics, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. Jakob.Ackermann@balgrist.ch. 2. Department of Orthopedics, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to quantify the effect of lower limb rotational parameters on the difference in the tibial-tubercle-trochlear-groove (TTTG) distance when assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in patients with patellar instability. It was hypothesized that an increased native knee rotation angle significantly contributes to an underestimation of TTTG by MRI. METHODS: Forty patients with patellar instability who had undergone standard radiographs, MRI and CT scans were included in this retrospective study. A musculoskeletal radiologist assessed all imaging for TTTG, femoral and tibial rotation, knee rotation and flexion angle, and trochlear dysplasia. ΔTTTG was defined as the TTTG measured on MRI subtracted from the TTTG measured on CT. Statistical analysis determined the effect of these parameters on the calculated difference between TTTG when measured on CT and MRI. RESULTS: Equal knee flexion in MRI and CT resulted in a ΔTTTG of 0.1 ± 0.3 mm compared to 4.0 ± 3.3 mm in patients with different knee flexion angles in both imaging acquisitions (p = 0.036). The knee rotation angle measured on CT (native knee rotation angle) was negatively correlated with ΔTTTG (r = - 0.365; p = 0.002), while neither tibial nor femoral rotation showed any associations with TTTG (n.s.). Trochlear dysplasia did not show any significant correlation with ΔTTTG, regardless of classification by Dejour or Lippacher (n.s.). Both the native knee rotation angle and the MRI knee flexion angle were independent predictors of ΔTTTG, yet with an opposing effect (knee rotation: 95% Confidence Interval [CI] for β - 0.468 to - 0.154, p < 0.001; knee flexion 95% CI for β 0.292 to 0.587, p < 0.001). Patients with a native knee rotation angle > 20° showed a ΔTTTG of - 5.8 ± 4.0 mm (MRI rather overestimates TTTG) compared to 0.9 ± 4.1 mm Δ TTTG (MRI rather underestimates TTTG) in patients with < 20° native knee rotation angle. CONCLUSION: The native knee rotation angle is an independent, inversely correlated predictor of ΔTTTG, thus opposing the effect of knee flexion during MRI acquisition. Consequently, these results suggest that not only knee flexion but also knee rotation should be appreciated when assessing TTTG during patellar instability diagnostic evaluation as it can potentially lead to a false estimation of the TTTG distance on MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to quantify the effect of lower limb rotational parameters on the difference in the tibial-tubercle-trochlear-groove (TTTG) distance when assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in patients with patellar instability. It was hypothesized that an increased native knee rotation angle significantly contributes to an underestimation of TTTG by MRI. METHODS: Forty patients with patellar instability who had undergone standard radiographs, MRI and CT scans were included in this retrospective study. A musculoskeletal radiologist assessed all imaging for TTTG, femoral and tibial rotation, knee rotation and flexion angle, and trochlear dysplasia. ΔTTTG was defined as the TTTG measured on MRI subtracted from the TTTG measured on CT. Statistical analysis determined the effect of these parameters on the calculated difference between TTTG when measured on CT and MRI. RESULTS: Equal knee flexion in MRI and CT resulted in a ΔTTTG of 0.1 ± 0.3 mm compared to 4.0 ± 3.3 mm in patients with different knee flexion angles in both imaging acquisitions (p = 0.036). The knee rotation angle measured on CT (native knee rotation angle) was negatively correlated with ΔTTTG (r = - 0.365; p = 0.002), while neither tibial nor femoral rotation showed any associations with TTTG (n.s.). Trochlear dysplasia did not show any significant correlation with ΔTTTG, regardless of classification by Dejour or Lippacher (n.s.). Both the native knee rotation angle and the MRI knee flexion angle were independent predictors of ΔTTTG, yet with an opposing effect (knee rotation: 95% Confidence Interval [CI] for β - 0.468 to - 0.154, p < 0.001; knee flexion 95% CI for β 0.292 to 0.587, p < 0.001). Patients with a native knee rotation angle > 20° showed a ΔTTTG of - 5.8 ± 4.0 mm (MRI rather overestimates TTTG) compared to 0.9 ± 4.1 mm Δ TTTG (MRI rather underestimates TTTG) in patients with < 20° native knee rotation angle. CONCLUSION: The native knee rotation angle is an independent, inversely correlated predictor of ΔTTTG, thus opposing the effect of knee flexion during MRI acquisition. Consequently, these results suggest that not only knee flexion but also knee rotation should be appreciated when assessing TTTG during patellar instability diagnostic evaluation as it can potentially lead to a false estimation of the TTTG distance on MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.