Erschienen in:
01.10.2014 | Knee
Anatomical factors influencing patellar tracking in the unstable patellofemoral joint
verfasst von:
Rahul Biyani, John J. Elias, Archana Saranathan, Hao Feng, Loredana M. Guseila, Melanie A. Morscher, Kerwyn C. Jones
Erschienen in:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
|
Ausgabe 10/2014
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Purpose
The current study was performed to relate anatomical parameters to in vivo patellar tracking for pediatric patients with recurrent patellar instability.
Methods
Seven pediatric patients with recurrent patellar instability that failed conservative treatment were evaluated using computational reconstruction of in vivo patellofemoral function. Computational models were created from high-resolution MRI scans of the unloaded knee and lower-resolution scans during isometric knee extension at multiple flexion angles. Shape matching techniques were applied to replace the low-resolution models of the loaded knee with the high-resolution models. Patellar tracking was characterized by the bisect offset index (lateral shift) and lateral tilt. Anatomical parameters were characterized by the inclination of the lateral ridge of the trochlear groove, the tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove distance, the Insall–Salvati index and the Caton–Deschamps index. Stepwise multivariable linear regression analysis was used to relate patellar tracking to the anatomical parameters.
Results
The bisect offset index and lateral tilt were significantly correlated with the lateral trochlear inclination (p ≤ 0.002) and TT–TG distance (p < 0.05), but not the Insall–Salvati index or the Caton–Deschamps index. For both the bisect offset index and lateral tilt, the standardized beta coefficient, used to identify the best anatomical predictors of tracking, was larger for the lateral trochlear inclination than the TT–TG distance.
Conclusion
For this population, the strongest predictor of lateral maltracking that could lead to patellar instability was lateral trochlear inclination.
Level of evidence
Diagnostic study, Level II.