A Comparison of Knee Abduction Angles Measured by a 3D Anatomic Coordinate System Versus Videographic Analysis: Implications for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Issue 1 (21st January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Englander, Zoë A.; Cutcliffe, Hattie C.; Utturkar, Gangadhar M.; Garrett, William E.; Spritzer, Charles E.; DeFrate, Louis E.
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 7:Issue 1(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-01-21
• Subjects: rupture -- imaging -- MRI -- mechanism -- injury -- valgus -- collapse; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967118819831
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: Knee positions involved in noncontact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury have been studied via analysis of injury videos. Positions of high ACL strain have been identified in vivo. These methods have supported different hypotheses regarding the role of knee abduction in ACL injury. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare knee abduction angles measured by 2 methods: using a 3-dimensional (3D) coordinate system based on anatomic features of the bones versus simulated 2-dimensional (2D) videographic analysis. We hypothesized that knee abduction angles measured in a 2D videographic analysis would differ from those measured from 3D bone anatomic features and that videographic knee abduction angles would depend on flexion angle and on the position of the camera relative to the patient. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Models of the femur and tibia were created from magnetic resonance images of 8 healthy male participants. The models were positioned to match biplanar fluoroscopic images obtained as participants posed in lunges of varying flexion angles (FLAs). Knee abduction angle was calculated from the positioned models in 2 ways: (1) varus-valgus angle (VVA), defined as the angle between the long axis of the tibia and the femoral transepicondylar axis by use of a 3D anatomic coordinate system; and (2) coronal plane angle (CPA), defined as the angle between the long axis of the tibia and the long axis of the femur projected onto the tibial coronal plane to simulate a 2D videographic analysis. We then simulated how changing the position of the camera relative to the participant would affect knee abduction angles. Results: During flexion, when CPA was calculated from a purely anterior or posterior view of the joint—an ideal scenario for measuring knee abduction from 2D videographic analysis—CPA was significantly different from VVA ( P < .0001). CPA also varied substantially with the position of the camera relative to the participant. Conclusion: How closely CPA (derived from 2D videographic analysis) relates to VVA (derived from a 3D anatomic coordinate system) depends on FLA and camera orientation. Clinical Relevance: This study provides a novel comparison of knee abduction angles measured from 2D videographic analysis and those measured within a 3D anatomic coordinate system. Consideration of these findings is important when interpreting 2D videographic data regarding knee abduction angle in ACL injury.