Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2015; 28(04): 315-320
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1384214
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Femoral Mechanical–Anatomical Angle Measurements in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Analog versus Digital

B. van Groningen
1   Orthopaedic Center Máxima, Máxima Medical Centre, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
,
J. W. A. M. den Teuling
1   Orthopaedic Center Máxima, Máxima Medical Centre, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
,
S. Houterman
2   Department of Education and Research, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
,
R. P. A. Janssen
1   Orthopaedic Center Máxima, Máxima Medical Centre, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

27 November 2013

21 May 2014

Publication Date:
26 June 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Preoperative planning in total knee arthroplasty with intramedullary guiding systems requires the measurement of the femoral mechanical–anatomical angle (FMAA) for optimal alignment correction. The main goal of this study was to assess the agreement between two digital FMAA measurements and the analog FMAA measurement. Overall 41 anteroposterior weight-bearing hip-to-ankle radiographs of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty were used for the measurements of the FMAA. The analog method (gold standard, GS) was compared with two new digital methods (DIG1 and DIG2) using intraclass correlation (ICC) and Bland–Altman plots, measured by three blinded raters. The ICC for measurements of the FMAA comparing the GS and DIG1 was 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20–0.68), and 0.53 (95% CI 0.26–0.73) for comparing GS and DIG2. The ICC between raters for DIG1 was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68–0.88) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.80–0.93) for DIG2. Bland–Altman plots showed a mean difference between the GS and DIG1 of −0.44 degrees, with 95% limits of agreement from 1.21 to −2.09 degrees. The mean difference between the GS and DIG2 was −0.68 degrees with 95% limits of agreement from 0.99 to −2.35 degrees. It was concluded that the digital FMAA measurement is less reliable than analog measurement in total knee arthroplasty.

Keywords

femoral mechanical–anatomical angle - analog - digital - measurement - total knee arthroplasty
 

  • References

  • 1 Cooke D, Scudamore A, Li J, Wyss U, Bryant T, Costigan P. Axial lower-limb alignment: comparison of knee geometry in normal volunteers and osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1997; 5 (1) 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kinzel V, Scaddan M, Bradley B, Shakespeare D. Varus/valgus alignment of the femur in total knee arthroplasty. Can accuracy be improved by pre-operative CT scanning?. Knee 2004; 11 (3) 197-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Deakin AH, Basanagoudar PL, Nunag P, Johnston AT, Sarungi M. Natural distribution of the femoral mechanical-anatomical angle in an osteoarthritic population and its relevance to total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2012; 19 (2) 120-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nam D, Maher PA, Robles A, McLawhorn AS, Mayman DJ. Variability in the relationship between the distal femoral mechanical and anatomical axes in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (5) 798-801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sailer J, Scharitzer M, Peloschek P, Giurea A, Imhof H, Grampp S. Quantification of axial alignment of the lower extremity on conventional and digital total leg radiographs. Eur Radiol 2005; 15 (1) 170-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 de Kroon KE, Houterman S, Janssen RP. Leg alignment and tibial slope after minimal invasive total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized radiological study of intramedullary versus extramedullary tibial instrumentation. Knee 2012; 19 (4) 270-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tolk JJ, Koot HW, Janssen RP. Computer navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2012; 25 (4) 347-352
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moreland JR, Bassett LW, Hanker GJ. Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69 (5) 745-749
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gordon JE, Chen RC, Dobbs MB, Luhmann SJ, Rich MM, Schoenecker PL. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability in the evaluation of mechanical axis deviation. J Pediatr Orthop 2009; 29 (3) 281-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rauh MA, Boyle J, Mihalko WM, Phillips MJ, Bayers-Thering M, Krackow KA. Reliability of measuring long-standing lower extremity radiographs. Orthopedics 2007; 30 (4) 299-303
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lohman M, Tallroth K, Kettunen JA, Remes V. Changing from analog to digital images: does it affect the accuracy of alignment measurements of the lower extremity?. Acta Orthop 2011; 82 (3) 351-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zaki R, Bulgiba A, Ismail R, Ismail NA. Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2012; 7 (5) e37908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yau WP, Chiu KY, Tang WM, Ng TP. Coronal bowing of the femur and tibia in Chinese: its incidence and effects on total knee arthroplasty planning. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2007; 15 (1) 32-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Huang TW, Hsu WH, Peng KT, Hsu RW. Total knee replacement in patients with significant femoral bowing in the coronal plane: a comparison of conventional and computer-assisted surgery in an Asian population. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (3) 345-350
    PubMedGoogle Scholar