Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A cadaver study comparing intraoperative methods to analyze lower limb alignment

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Conventional intraoperative determination of lower limb alignment is essential for orthopedic surgical treatment. Current methods include the cable, alignment rod, and axis board methods.

Question/purposes

Are there differences in accuracy and reliability? What are the individual differences in applicability and radiation exposure?

Methods

Twenty legs from 12 fresh-frozen cadavers were randomly selected. After fixation of the legs, measurements were performed using the cable, alignment rod, and axis board methods. Afterwards, all cadavers were subjected to CT scanning. Intersection of the mechanical leg axis with the tibia plateau was calculated as the percentage of the tibia plateau, beginning at the medial border (0 %) and ending at the lateral border (100 %). Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).

Results

Compared with CT measurements, differences of the intersection at the tibia plateau were 3.9 ± 8.5 % with the cable method, 3.6 ± 7.6 % using the alignment rod, and 3.6 ± 9.6 % using the axis board. The difference among all measurements was not statistically significant (p = 0.450). The average intersection of the mechanical axis was 43.95 ± 5.15 % using the cable method, 43.93 ± 5.49 % using the alignment rod, and 43.77 ± 5.92 % using the axis board. CT measurements revealed an average intersection of 42.46 ± 5.22 %. There was no statistically significant difference among conventional results (p = 0.976). We demonstrated good intraobserver reliability for all three methods (cable method, ICC = 0.97; alignment rod, ICC = 0.95; and axis board, ICC = 0.96). There were no statistically significant differences regarding radiation time (p = 0.349) or dose area product (p = 0.823).

Conclusions

All described measurements demonstrated valid measurement of lower limb alignment. With minimal effort, all three methods present a practical and uncomplicated way to control the mechanical axis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sharma L, Song J, Felson DT, Cahue S, Shamiyeh E, Dunlop DD. The role of knee alignment in disease progression and functional decline in knee osteoarthritis. JAMA. 2001;286(2):188–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hsu RW, Himeno S, Coventry MB, Chao EY. Normal axial alignment of the lower extremity and load-bearing distribution at the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;255:215–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Papachristou G. Photoelastic study of the internal and contact stresses on the knee joint before and after osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124(5):288–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hernigou P, Medevielle D, Debeyre J, Goutallier D. Proximal tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis with varus deformity. A ten to thirteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(3):332–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Matthews LS, Goldstein SA, Malvitz TA, Katz BP, Kaufer H. Proximal tibial osteotomy. Factors that influence the duration of satisfactory function. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;229:193–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Paley D, Tetsworth K. Mechanical axis deviation of the lower limbs. Preoperative planning of uniapical angular deformities of the tibia or femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;280:48–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sprenger TR, Doerzbacher JF. Tibial osteotomy for the treatment of varus gonarthrosis. Survival and failure analysis to twenty-two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(3):469–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Luring C, Zurakowski D, Grifka J. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2004;86(5):682–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1991;73(5):709–14.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lotke PA, Ecker ML. Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977;59(1):77–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kettelkamp DB, Hillberry BM, Murrish DE, Heck DA. Degenerative arthritis of the knee secondary to fracture malunion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;234:159–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Schoot DK, Den Outer AJ, Bode PJ, Obermann WR, van Vugt AB. Degenerative changes at the knee and ankle related to malunion of tibial fractures. 15-year follow-up of 88 patients. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1996;78(5):722–5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Krettek C, Miclau T, Grun O, Schandelmaier P, Tscherne H. Intraoperative control of axes, rotation and length in femoral and tibial fractures. Technical Note. Injury. 1998;29 Suppl 3:C29–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liodakis E, Kenawey M, Liodaki E, Mommsen P, Krettek C, Hankemeier S. The axis-board: an alternative to the cable technique for intraoperative assessment of lower limb alignment. Technol Health Care. 2010;18(3):165–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Saleh M, Harriman P, Edwards DJ. A radiological method for producing precise limb alignment. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1991;73(3):515–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hankemeier S, Hufner T, Wang G, Kendoff D, Zheng G, Richter M, et al. Navigated intraoperative analysis of lower limb alignment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125(8):531–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chao EY, Neluheni EV, Hsu RW, Paley D. Biomechanics of malalignment. Orthop Clin North Am. 1994;25(3):379–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Paley D, Herzenberg JE, Tetsworth K, McKie J, Bhave A. Deformity planning for frontal and sagittal plane corrective osteotomies. Orthop Clin North Am. 1994;25(3):425–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mohanlal P, Jain S. Assessment and validation of CT scanogram to compare per-operative and post-operative mechanical axis after navigated total knee replacement. Int Orthop. 2009;33(2):437–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gbejuade HO, White P, Hassaballa M, Porteous AJ, Robinson JR, Murray JR. Do long-leg supine CT scanograms correlate with weight-bearing full-length radiographs to measure lower limb coronal alignment? The Knee. 2013

  22. Wang L, Fallavollita P, Brand A, Erat O, Weidert S, Thaller PH, et al. Intra-op measurement of the mechanical axis deviation: an evaluation study on 19 human cadaver legs. Med Image Comput Comput-Assist Interv : MICCAI Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput-Assist Interv. 2012;15(Pt 2):609–16.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Babazadeh S, Dowsey MM, Bingham RJ, Ek ET, Stoney JD, Choong PF. The long-leg radiograph is a reliable method of assessing alignment when compared to computer-assisted navigation and computer tomography. Knee. 2013;20(4):242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hankemeier S, Hufner T, Wang G, Kendoff D, Zeichen J, Zheng G, et al. Navigated open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: advantages and disadvantages compared to the conventional technique in a cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(10):917–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Paul Kretchmer (kretchmer@sfedit.net) at San Francisco Edit for his assistance in editing this manuscript and Wilko Ruether, MD, for assistance during measurements.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trauma Department of the Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Nael Hawi, Emmanouil Liodakis, Eduardo M. Suero, Rupert Meller, Musa Citak & Christian Krettek

Authors
  1. Nael Hawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanouil Liodakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eduardo M. Suero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rupert Meller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Musa Citak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian Krettek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nael Hawi.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. The ethical committee of the Hannover Medical School approved the study (1952–2013).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hawi, N., Liodakis, E., Suero, E.M. et al. A cadaver study comparing intraoperative methods to analyze lower limb alignment. Skeletal Radiol 43, 1577–1581 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-1972-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-1972-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation