Rotational alignment of the distal femur: anthropometric measurements with CT‐based patient‐specific instruments planning show high variability of the posterior condylar angle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Finding the anatomical landmarks used for correct femoral axial alignment can be difficult. The posterior condylar line (PCL) is probably the easiest to find during surgery. The aim of this study was to analyse whether a predetermined fixed angle referencing of the PCL could help find the surgical epicondylar axis (SEA) and this based on a large CT database with enough Caucasian diversity to be representable. METHODS: A total of 2,637 CT scans and 3D reconstructions from patients on four continents, executed for preoperative planning and creation of patient-specific instrumentation, were used to perform anthropometric measurements and to measure the posterior condylar angle (PCA) between the surgical epicondylar angle and the PCL. RESULTS: The mean (SD) PCA was 4° (1.4°) of external rotation. A significant correlation was found between more external rotation of the SEA and more proximal varus of the tibia or more distal valgus of the femur. For 59% of the study population, 4° external rotation from the PCL would be the right amount of axial rotation to align the femoral component in line with the SEA. Nine per cent needs less, and 32% needs more than 4° of axial rotation. On 105 (4%) CT-based 3D models, external rotation between 7° and 11° was measured and 77 (73%) of those cases were in varus or neutral alignment. In 132 patients, bilateral measurements were available and 94 (71%) had rotation within 1° of the opposite side. This last finding underlines that there is even an intra-individual difference in distal femoral anatomy that can range from 1° to 5°. CONCLUSIONS: This study was performed on a very large anthropometric CT and 3D models database and showed that there is a 41% risk of malalignment if a fixed PCA referenced of the PCL is used in total knee arthroplasty. The clinical importance of this study is the observation that femoral axial anatomy is individual and also that it is determined by the tibial anatomy. A group of patients needs more than the average external rotation because they have more distal femoral valgus with dysplastic condyles or more proximal tibial varus with a bigger medial condyle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".