Is conventional knee radiograph reliable enough to assess the anatomical knee alignment and total knee prosthesis position in Indian population?

Suryamanikanta Balabadra, Ratnakar Vecham, M. Reddy, Adarsh Annapareddy, M. Kumar, A. Reddy
{"title":"Is conventional knee radiograph reliable enough to assess the anatomical knee alignment and total knee prosthesis position in Indian population?","authors":"Suryamanikanta Balabadra, Ratnakar Vecham, M. Reddy, Adarsh Annapareddy, M. Kumar, A. Reddy","doi":"10.4103/jotr.jotr_59_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The success and survivorship of primary total knee replacement mainly depend on the postoperative alignment and implant position. Long-leg radiograph (LLR) is considered gold standard in assessing knee alignment postoperatively. Studies have reported that bowing of the femoral shaft in the coronal plane is prevalent in Asian population, which is not fully visualized on a conventional knee radiograph (CKR) and may affect the assessment of coronal alignment. However, postoperatively, CKR is easy to perform and has several advantages if it provides similar precision. Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the validity of CKR in assessing the anatomical knee alignment and prosthesis position as compared with the LLR in Indian population. Materials and Methods: One hundred knees in 83 patients were subjected to CKR and LLR during postoperative follow-up at 6 weeks. Three parameters were evaluated to assess the coronal alignment and the component positions - femoral component angle (FCA), tibial component angle (TCA), and tibiofemoral angle (TFA). Results: There was an excellent correlation between the TCA as measured from the long and CKRs (r = 0.884, P = 0.01). There was a high positive correlation between the FCA (r = 0.703, P = 0.01) and TFA (r = 0.754, P = 0.01) as measured from the long radiographs and the conventional radiographs. Regression analysis defined these relationships to be linear. Conclusion: CKR could be an appropriate alternative for the LLR in evaluating the postoperative knee alignment and total knee prosthesis position despite the fact that there is excessive femoral bowing in Indian population.","PeriodicalId":34195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopedics Traumatology and Rehabilitation","volume":"51 35","pages":"42 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopedics Traumatology and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jotr.jotr_59_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The success and survivorship of primary total knee replacement mainly depend on the postoperative alignment and implant position. Long-leg radiograph (LLR) is considered gold standard in assessing knee alignment postoperatively. Studies have reported that bowing of the femoral shaft in the coronal plane is prevalent in Asian population, which is not fully visualized on a conventional knee radiograph (CKR) and may affect the assessment of coronal alignment. However, postoperatively, CKR is easy to perform and has several advantages if it provides similar precision. Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the validity of CKR in assessing the anatomical knee alignment and prosthesis position as compared with the LLR in Indian population. Materials and Methods: One hundred knees in 83 patients were subjected to CKR and LLR during postoperative follow-up at 6 weeks. Three parameters were evaluated to assess the coronal alignment and the component positions - femoral component angle (FCA), tibial component angle (TCA), and tibiofemoral angle (TFA). Results: There was an excellent correlation between the TCA as measured from the long and CKRs (r = 0.884, P = 0.01). There was a high positive correlation between the FCA (r = 0.703, P = 0.01) and TFA (r = 0.754, P = 0.01) as measured from the long radiographs and the conventional radiographs. Regression analysis defined these relationships to be linear. Conclusion: CKR could be an appropriate alternative for the LLR in evaluating the postoperative knee alignment and total knee prosthesis position despite the fact that there is excessive femoral bowing in Indian population.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在印度人群中,传统的膝关节x线片是否足够可靠来评估解剖性膝关节对齐和全膝关节假体位置?
背景:原发性全膝关节置换术的成功和存活主要取决于术后假体的排列和位置。长腿x线片(LLR)被认为是评估术后膝关节对齐的金标准。有研究报道,在亚洲人群中,股骨干的冠状面弯曲很普遍,这在传统的膝关节x线片(CKR)上不能完全显示,并可能影响冠状面对齐的评估。然而,术后,CKR很容易执行,如果它提供类似的精度,它有几个优点。目的:目的是评估CKR与LLR在印度人群中评估膝关节解剖线和假体位置的有效性。材料与方法:83例患者100个膝关节在术后6周随访期间进行CKR和LLR。评估冠状面对齐和假体位置的三个参数:股骨假体角(FCA)、胫骨假体角(TCA)和胫股角(TFA)。结果:长径测得的TCA与ckr有极好的相关性(r = 0.884, P = 0.01)。长片和常规x线片FCA与TFA呈高度正相关(r = 0.703, P = 0.01),两者呈正相关(r = 0.754, P = 0.01)。回归分析将这些关系定义为线性关系。结论:尽管印度人群中存在过度的股骨弯曲,但CKR可以作为LLR评估术后膝关节对齐和全膝关节假体位置的合适替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Spinal instrumentation in the setting of nontuberculous spondylodiscitis: A prospective analysis Comparative evaluation of postoperative incisional negative pressure wound therapy with conventional dressings in patients of proximal tibia fracture managed by dual plating Are we really improving the quality of life after hemiarthroplasty of the hip in the elderly? An observational study Successful outcome in posttraumatic superficial femoral artery pseudoaneurysm following distal femur fracture Bilateral outpatient total knee arthroplasty – Is it feasible, safe, and worth considering: A pilot study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1