Joaquin Moya-Angeler1, Giampietro L Vairo2, Dov A Bader3, Wayne J Sebastianelli3, Paul S Sherbondy3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 2. Departments of Kinesiology, and Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Colleges or Health and Human Development, and Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.. Electronic address: glv103@psu.edu. 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of our study was to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of the tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance relative to associated quotients produced from trochlear width (TT-TG distance/TW) and trochlear dysplasia index (TT-TG distance/TDI) for detecting patellofemoral instability. Secondary aims included identifying thresholds for risk and comparing differences between cases and controls. METHODS: Consecutive sampling of electronic medical records produced 48 (21 males, 27 females) patellofemoral instability cases (19 ± 7 years old) and 79 (61 males, 18 females) controls (23 ± 4 years old) who had a history of isolated meniscal lesion, as evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging. Standardized methods were employed with measurements executed in a blinded and randomized manner. A receiver operating characteristic curve assessed accuracy by area under the curve (AUC). The index of union (IU) was employed to identify a threshold for risk. Two-sample t-tests examined group differences. P < .05 denoted statistical significance. RESULTS: The AUC values were .69 (.60, .79) for TT-TG distance, .81 (.73, .88) for TT-TG distance/TW, and .85 (.78, .91) for TT-TG distance/TDI. Thresholds were 14.7 mm for TT-TG distance, .36 for TT-TG distance/TW, and 1.88 for TT-TG distance/TDI. Cases demonstrated statistically significant (P < .001) greater values for each measure compared with controls: TT-TG distance (15.8 ± 4.2 mm vs 12.9 ± 3.6 mm, [1.4, 4.3]); TT-TG distance/TW (.51 ± .24 vs .31 ± .09, [.13, .27]); TT-TG distance/TDI (3.07 ± 1.55 vs 1.7 ± .7, [.9, 1.84]). CONCLUSION: The TT-TG distance, TT-TG distance/TW, and TT-TG distance/TDI measures were 69%, 81%, and 85%, respectively, accurate for determining patellofemoral instability risk. Thresholds for risk were 14.7 mm for TT-TG distance, .36 for TT-TG distance/TW, and 1.88 for TT-TG distance/TDI. The thresholds reported in this study may help in advancing clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic retrospective comparative observatory trial.
PURPOSE: The primary aim of our study was to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of the tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance relative to associated quotients produced from trochlear width (TT-TG distance/TW) and trochlear dysplasia index (TT-TG distance/TDI) for detecting patellofemoral instability. Secondary aims included identifying thresholds for risk and comparing differences between cases and controls. METHODS: Consecutive sampling of electronic medical records produced 48 (21 males, 27 females) patellofemoral instability cases (19 ± 7 years old) and 79 (61 males, 18 females) controls (23 ± 4 years old) who had a history of isolated meniscal lesion, as evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging. Standardized methods were employed with measurements executed in a blinded and randomized manner. A receiver operating characteristic curve assessed accuracy by area under the curve (AUC). The index of union (IU) was employed to identify a threshold for risk. Two-sample t-tests examined group differences. P < .05 denoted statistical significance. RESULTS: The AUC values were .69 (.60, .79) for TT-TG distance, .81 (.73, .88) for TT-TG distance/TW, and .85 (.78, .91) for TT-TG distance/TDI. Thresholds were 14.7 mm for TT-TG distance, .36 for TT-TG distance/TW, and 1.88 for TT-TG distance/TDI. Cases demonstrated statistically significant (P < .001) greater values for each measure compared with controls: TT-TG distance (15.8 ± 4.2 mm vs 12.9 ± 3.6 mm, [1.4, 4.3]); TT-TG distance/TW (.51 ± .24 vs .31 ± .09, [.13, .27]); TT-TG distance/TDI (3.07 ± 1.55 vs 1.7 ± .7, [.9, 1.84]). CONCLUSION: The TT-TG distance, TT-TG distance/TW, and TT-TG distance/TDI measures were 69%, 81%, and 85%, respectively, accurate for determining patellofemoral instability risk. Thresholds for risk were 14.7 mm for TT-TG distance, .36 for TT-TG distance/TW, and 1.88 for TT-TG distance/TDI. The thresholds reported in this study may help in advancing clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic retrospective comparative observatory trial.