Distal Femur Morphological Discrepancy Compared with Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants in Indonesia

Okkie Mharga Sentana, Pamudji Utomo

Abstract


Background: The prosthesis of knee joint in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can give better fixation and stabilization if it’s chosen properly. Most of prosthesis have been designed to be compatible with western population, not for Asian population. Whether the implant size need to be adjusted with ethnics and gender still being a controversy. 

Aim: to define whether the morphology of Distal Femur, among men and women in Indonesia have discrepancy and to assess compatibility of the prosthesis size in Indonesia

Methods: This study was a descriptive cross-sectional study that conducted at Prof. Dr. R Soeharso’s Orthopaedic Hospital – Surakarta, Indonesia, using purposive quota sampling methods. The inclusion criteria MRI knee joint of men and women (age ≥ 18 years old) which have soft tissue injury of knee joint. The morphological measurement of Distal Femur with the use of certain Software. Then, the data were analyzed with SPSS ver.17 using independent T-Test.

Results:  Among 130 patients, we found that Women’s fML were narrower than men. While the ratio aspect of femur implants compared to gender, showed that it was not compatible for men, but more compatible for women.

Conclusion: There is discrepancy of morphological size of Distal Femur among men and women in Indonesia. It causes incompatibility of using TKA implant in men patients in Indonesia, which more suitable for women size.

 


Keywords


Total Knee Arthroplasty; Implants; Femur; Prosthesis; Discrepancy

References


References

Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; 13–4.

Incavo SJ, Ronchetti PJ, Howe JG, Tranowski JP. Tibial plateau coverage in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; 81–5.

Westrich GH, Haas SB, Insall JN, Frachie A. Resection specimen analysis of proximal tibial anatomy based on 100 total knee arthroplasty specimens. J Arthroplasty. 1995; 10: 47–51.

Greene KA. Gender-specific design in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22: 27–31.

Barrett WP. The need for gender-specific prostheses in TKA: does size make a difference? Orthopedics. 2006; 29: S53–5.

Conley S, Rosenberg A, Crowninshield R. The female knee: anatomic variations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg .2007;15 (Suppl. 1): S31–6.

Merchant AC, Arendt EA, Dye SF, Fredericson M, Grelsamer RP, Leadbetter WB, et al. The female knee: anatomic variations and the female-specific total knee design. Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2008; 466: 3059–65.

Mahfouz MR, Merkl BC, Fatah EE, Booth Jr R, Argenson JN. Automatic methods for characterization of sexual dimorphism of adult femora: distal femur. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2007; 10: 447–56.

Hitt K, Shurman II JR, Greene K, McCarthy J, Moskal J, Hoeman T, et al. Anthropometric measurements of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(Suppl. 4): 115–22.

Chin KR, Dalury DF, Zurakowski D, Scott RD. Intraoperative measurements of male and female distal femurs during primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2002; 15: 213–7.

Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright EA, Sledge CB. Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A: 2179–86.

MacDonald SJ, Charron KD, Bourne RB, Naudie DD, McCalden RW, Rorabeck CH. The John Insall Award: gender-specific total knee replacement: prospectively collected clinical outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466: 2612–6.

Clarke HD, Hentz JG. Restoration of femoral anatomy in TKA with unisex and gender-specific components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:2711–6.

Cheng FB, Ji XF, Lai Y, Feng JC, Zheng WX, Sun YF, et al. Three dimensional morphometry of the knee to design the total knee arthroplasty for Chinese population. Knee. 2009; 16: 341–7.

Ho WP, Cheng CK, Liau JJ. Morphometrical measurements of resected surface of femurs in Chinese knees: correlation to the sizing of current femoral implants. Knee. 2006; 13: 12–4.

Uehara K, Kadoya Y, Kobayashi A, Ohashi H, Yamano Y. Anthropometry of the proximal tibia to design a total knee prosthesis for the Japanese population. J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 1028–32.

MahfouzM, Abdel Fatah EE, Bowers LS, Scuderi G. Three-dimensional morphology of the knee reveals ethnic differences. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470: 172–85.

Yue B, Varadarajan KM, Ai S, Tang T, Rubash HE, Li G. Differences of knee anthropometry between Chinese and white men and women. J Arthroplasty 2011;26: 124–30.

Vaidya SV, Ranawat CS, Aroojis A, Laud NS. Anthropometric measurements to design total knee prostheses for the Indian population. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15: 79–85.

Budhiparama NC, Lumban-Gaol I, Ifran NN, de Groot PCJ, Utomo DN, Nelissen RGHH. Mismatched knee implants in Indonesian and Dutch patients: a need for increasing the size. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Feb;29(2):358-369. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-05914-9. Epub 2020 Mar 11. PMID: 32162046.

Hitt K, Shurman JR 2nd, Greene K, McCarthy J, Moskal J, Hoeman T, Mont MA. Anthropometric measurements of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A Suppl 4:115-22. PMID: 14652402.

Kim TK, Phillips M, Bhandari M, Watson J, Malhotra R. What Differences in Morphologic Features of the Knee Exist Among Patients of Various Races? A Systematic Review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jan;475(1):170-182. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-5097-4. Epub 2016 Oct 4. Erratum in: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 May;475(5):1507. PMID: 27704318; PMCID: PMC5174057.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.46355/hipknee.v4i2.153

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Knee and Hip Journal has been indexed and abstracted in the following databases: