Is distal femoral torsion the same in both of a patient's legs? Morphometric CT study

Beranger, J; Dujardin, D.; Taburet, Jean-François; Boisrenoult, Philippe; Steltzlen, Camille; Beaufils, Philippe; Pujol, Nicolas

doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2018.02.014

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intraobserver reliabilities were also assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Previous studies have already shown good interobserver agreement [7, 30].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 85%

The use of an asymmetrical tibial tray in TKA optimises tibial rotation when fitted to the posterior tibial plateau border

Okazaki

Pujol

2020

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of positioning an asymmetrical tibial tray relative to the posterior tibial edge and to analyse the relationship between the posterior it and tibial rotation after computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesised that an asymmetrical tray would adjust to the posterior border of the tibial plateau with proper tibial rotation. Methods Ninety-three consecutive knees underwent total knee arthroplasty using a Persona ixed-bearing system (63 varus deformities and 30 valgus deformities) and a 3-month follow-up CT scan. An independent examiner measured diferent variables: the femoral angle between the clinical epicondylar axis and the posterior condylar line of the femoral component, the tibial angle between the posterior borders of the tibial tray and the tibial plateau, and the tibial rotation with respect to the femoral component. These measurements were also compared between varus and valgus subgroups. Results For the varus and valgus subgroups, the mean postoperative femoral angle was 2.1º ± 1.2º and 2.5º ± 1.0º, respectively (n.s.). The mean posterior itting angle of the tibial tray was 0.1º ± 2.4º and 1.4º ± 3.2º for the varus and valgus subgroups, respectively, with a signiicant diference between groups (p = 0.03). The tibial rotations with respect to the femoral component for the varus and valgus groups were 0.9º ± 3.3º and 2.2º ± 3.1º of external rotation, respectively (n.s.). Conclusions This study demonstrated that itting an asymmetrical tibial tray to the posterior border of the tibial plateau could optimise tibial rotation. The posterior border was considered to be a reliable and easily identiiable landmark for proper tibial rotation and coverage during a primary TKA. Level of evidence IV KeywordsTotal knee arthroplasty • Asymmetrical tibial tray • Computer-assisted surgery • Computer tomographic (CT) scan • Component placement • Tibial posterior border • Tibial rotation

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 85%