| Literature DB >> 35321559 |
Harry Krishnan1, Jonathan D Eldridge2, Damian Clark2, Andrew J Metcalfe3, Jarrad M Stevens4, Vipul Mandalia5.
Abstract
Recognized anatomic variations that lead to patella instability include patella alta and trochlea dysplasia. Lateralization of the extensor mechanism relative to the trochlea is often considered to be a contributing factor; however, controversy remains as to the degree this contributes to instability and how this should be measured. As the tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) is one of most common imaging measurements to assess lateralization of the extensor mechanism, it is important to understand its strengths and weaknesses. Care needs to be taken while interpreting the TT-TG value as it is affected by many factors. Medializing tibial tubercle osteotomy is sometimes used to correct the TT-TG, but may not truly address the underlying anatomical problem. This review set out to determine whether the TT-TG distance sufficiently summarizes the pathoanatomy, and if this assists with planning of surgery in patellar instability. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):268-274.Entities:
Keywords: Patellar instability; TT-TG; Tibial tuberosity; dysplastic trochlear; knee; osteotomy; patella; patella alta; pathoanatomy; stability; strengths; tibial tubercle osteotomy; tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distances; trochlea; trochlear groove
Year: 2022 PMID: 35321559 PMCID: PMC8965791 DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.33.BJO-2021-0107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bone Jt Open ISSN: 2633-1462
Fig. 1Illustration of tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove measurement.
Comparision of tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) using MRI and CT scans.
| Author | Year | Knees imaged, n | Sex | Age, yrs, mean (SD) or median (IQR) | Recruitment | TT-TG by CT, mm (SD) | TT-TG by MRI, mm (SD) | Inter-rater reliability for TT-TG CT vs MRI, ICC | Inter-rater reliability for TT-TG CT vs MRI, difference (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schottle
| 2006 | 12 | 10 F, 2 M | N/A | Prospective | 14.4 (5.4) | 13.9 (4.5) | 0.82 | 0.5 (3.9) |
| Camp
| 2013 | 59 | 31 F, 28 M | 24 (13 to 59) | Retrospective | 16.9 | 14.7 | 0.53 to 0.54 | 2.23 (3.89) |
| Ho
| 2015 | 59 | 31 F, 28 M | 32.8 (12.9) | Retrospective | 14.2 (4.5) | 11.7 (4.3) | 0.643 | 2.79 |
| Hinckel
| 2015 | 50 | 34 F, 16 M | 28.7 (13.1) | Retrospective | 12.73 (4.25) | 9.3 (3.75) | N/A | 3.43 (3.87) |
| Anley
| 2015 | 141 | 108 F, 33 M | 28.5 (11.13) | Retrospective | 17.72 (5.15) | 13.56 (6.07) | 0.54 to 0.48 | 4.16 |
ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; IQR, interquartile range; N/A, not applicable; SD, standard deviation.
Comparision of tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) in varying flexion angles and weightbearing simulation.
| Author | Year | Knees imaged, n | Sex | Age, yrs, mean (SD) or median (IQR) | Modality | NWB TT-TG 0°, mm (SD) | NWB TT-TG 15°, mm (SD) | NWB TT-TG 30°, mm (SD) | WB TT-TG 0°, mm (SD) | WB TT-TG 30°, mm (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Izadpanah
| 2013 | 8 | 7 F, 1 M | 35 (7) | MRI | 11.6 (4.4) | N/A | 7.3 (2.9) | 6.3.(3.2) | 4.9 (3.9) |
| Hircshman
| 2015 | 26 | 31 F, 28 M | 57 (15.9) | CT | 13.8 (5.1) to 13.9 (3.9) | N/A | N/A | 10.5. (5) to 10.9. (5.2) | N/A |
| Dietrich
| 2012 | 30 | 15 F,15 M | 28.7 (5.3) | MRI | 15.1 (3.2) to 14.8 (3.3) | 10.0 (3.5) to 9.4 (3.0) | 8.1 (3.4) to 8.6 (3.4) | N/A | N/A |
| Seitlinger
| 2014 | 66 | N/A | 20.5 to 23.1 | MRI | 14 (6) to 10 (3) | 13 (6) to 9 (4) | 12 (6) to 10 (4) | N/A | N/A |
N/A, not applicable; NWB, non-weightbearing; TT-TG, tibial tubercle-trochlear groove; WB, weightbearing.
Fig. 2Tibial tubercle-trochlear groove percentile growth chart.
Fig. 3Illustration of tibial tubercle-posterior cruciate ligament measurement.