Difference in sex and the effect of a dominant lower extremity in the posterior tibial slope angle in healthy Japanese subjects

Abstract

Background/objective Anterior cruciate ligament injuries are prone to re-injury, and it is crucial to prevent the primary injury. One of the anatomical risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury is the posterior tibial slope angle. Investigating the characteristics of healthy individuals with respect to the posterior tibial slope angle is important to elucidate the risk of developing anterior cruciate ligament injuries. The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics related to sex and of the posterior tibial slope angle in healthy Japanese subjects, and the effect of the dominant lower extremity. Methods Sixty-two knees of 31 healthy Japanese college students (15 males and 16 females) were included in this study. Magnetic resonance images of both knee joints of the subjects were measured using a 0.3 T scanner. The medial and lateral posterior tibial slope angles were measured from the obtained magnetic resonance images. Magnetic resonance images of the knee joint of the dominant lower extremity were used to compare differences in sexes between the medial and lateral posterior tibial slope angles. Bilateral knee joint magnetic resonance images were used to compare the dominant and non-dominant lower extremities. Independent t-tests were used to compare the differences regarding sex in the medial and lateral posterior tibial slope angles and to compare the dominant and non-dominant lower extremities. Results A comparison of the mean lateral posterior tibial slope angle showed that males had a 8.8 ± 1.7° angle, while females had a 10.3 ± 2.2° angle, which was significantly greater (p = 0.047). There was no significant difference comparing the posterior tibial slope angle between the dominant and non-dominant lower extremities (p = 0.430). Conclusions From the result of this study, the lateral posterior tibial slope angle was significantly higher in the female group than in the male group. However, both the medial and lateral posterior tibial slope angles were found to be unaffected by the dominant lower extremity.

Relationship Between Posterior Tibial Slope and Lower Extremity Biomechanics During a Single-Leg Drop Landing Combined With a Cognitive Task in Athletes After ACL Reconstruction

“…Patients with ACL reconstruction have similar rates of reinjury of graft and injuring the contralateral limb, 11 and the results of this study may support this. Furthermore, although PTS on the contralateral limb was not measured in this study, considering that PTS has been reported to be similar between left and right sides in healthy individuals, 4 the fact that kinetics and kinematics on the involved and contralateral limbs were comparable suggests that PTS may be associated with a similar risk of graft rupture and contralateral ACL injury.…”

“…Therefore, how kinematics and kinetics changed was not examined as the task became more complex. Second, although it has been reported that there is no difference in PTS between the left and right sides, 4 the PTS of the contralateral limb has not been measured. In investigating the effect of PTS on SDL after ACL reconstruction, it is necessary to measure PTS in addition to kinetics and kinematics on the contralateral limb.…”

Evaluation of Failed ACL Reconstruction: An Updated Review

“…32,33 Attempts have been made to link this to anatomical differences such as increased quadriceps angle and PTS in females, smaller notch width and ACL cross-sectional area, and hormonal contributions, however no conclusive correlation has been established. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Interestingly, studies have consistently shown females to have similar or even slightly decreased rates of graft rupture and failure as males, 17,33,[41][42][43] however their rates of contralateral ACL injury are significantly greater following ACLR. Shelbourne et al published a 7.8% contralateral injury rate in female patients compared to a 4.3% ipsilateral reinjury rate (p > 0.001).…”