AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.31579/2641-0427/008
*Corresponding Author: Krishna MA, Department of Orthopaedics, Bahadur Hospital, India.
Citation: Krishna MA and Madaan E, 2018.“Methodical clinical measurement of knee deformity”, J. Orthopaedics and Surgical Sports Medicine. 1(2); Doi: 10.31579/2641-0427/008
Copyright: © 2018 Krishna MA. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 26 September 2018 | Accepted: 17 October 2018 | Published: 22 October 2018
Keywords: nee osteoarthritis; sagittal knee alignment; hip-knee-ankle
The recognition of the pattern and severity of deformity in knee osteoarthritis has important implications in its management and prognosis. A number of methods can be used to assess and measure the coronal and sagittal knee alignment: clinical deformity measuring device like a goniometer, standard knee radiographs, hip-knee-ankle (HKA) radiographs, computer navigation systems, magnetic resonance scan, computerized tomographic scan or simply a surgeon’s subjective measurement. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this study was to compare three methods of measurement: clinical measurement with a goniometer; HKA radiographs and computer navigation.
This study included 54 patients with arthritic knees, who underwent total knee replacement with computer navigation. The deformity in both coronal and sagittal planes was measured using the three methods and the results compared using Bland Altman limits of agreement.
The clinical measurement differed greatly from radiographic and computer navigation measurements. According to Bland Altman limits of agreement clinical measurements could be up to 10° away from the radiographic or computer navigated measurements in coronal plane. In the sagittal plane the clinical measurements could be up to 12° away compared to computer navigation measurements.
A combination of these measurements methods should be taken into account when assessing the deformity of a knee especially in relation to posture and weight bearing status. The methodical clinical measurement of knee deformity as described in this paper gives too wide a margin of error and should not be relied upon in isolation.
The recognition of the pattern and severity of deformity in knee osteoarthritis has important implications in its management and prognosis [1-5]. A number of methods can be used to assess and measure the coronal and sagittal knee alignment: clinical deformity measuring device like a goniometer; standard knee radiographs; hip-knee-ankle (HKA) radiographs; computer navigation systems and computerized tomographic scan (CT scan) [5-10]. CT scans can is also be used to assess rotational alignment [11-13]. However many of these modalities are not yet widely available and most surgeons rely on simple clinical assessment and standard knee radiographs. There is evidence in the literature showing that standard short knee radiographs are not sufficient to accurately assess knee alignment [14,15]. There is some suggestion that clinical anatomic axis measurement correlates well with radiographic mechanical axis [6], however in our experience clinical assessment may be inaccurate and can give an incorrect impression of the true deformity pattern. In our practice image-free computer navigation is used routinely for knee replacement and all patients have pre-operative and post-operative coronal hip-knee-ankle radiographs.
The aim of this study was to compare clinical measurements of knee deformity in osteoarthritis to both hip-knee-ankle radiographs and computer navigation measurements and to assess whether pre-operative clinical measurements provided useful information to enable the surgeon to plan the operation accurately.
Materials and Methods
The study was conducted under our institution’s Clinical Governance procedures for prospective audits. Patients with osteoarthritis in knee, admitted for primary total knee replacement with computer navigation in our institute under care of senior author were included in the audit. Those with previous surgery on the knee were excluded. Knee deformity was measured in 54 osteoarthritic knees who had been admitted for primary total knee replacement surgery. Clinical measurements, HKA radiographs and computer navigation measurements were used to assess the deformity. The coronal and sagittal plane deformity were evaluated using clinical and computer navigation measurements. On the radiographs only the coronal plane deformity was measured.
Clinical measurements
Clinical measurement was done on the day of admission. The patient was adequately exposed from the waist down. He/she was then asked to assume usual stance to avoid excessive limb rotation. For coronal plane measurement, surface landmarks were used to identify the hip, knee and ankle centers. The midpoint between the anterior superior iliac spine and the pubic tubercle was marked as the hip center [16].
The center of the knee was marked as the point between the medial and lateral border of the knee. The point in the anterior ankle between the medial and lateral malleolus was marked as the center of the ankle. A long arm goniometer was used to measure the coronal lower limb alignment using these surface landmarks. For flexion deformity, the patient was viewed from the side and the long axis of the thigh and the leg were determined, and the angle between them measured with the goniometer.
Radiographic Measurements
The pre-operative HKA radiographs, as stored in a Picture Archiving System (PACS, Kodak), were measured by two independent observers. The centre of the hip was identified using concentric circles (Figure 2B) [17]. The knee center was identified as the center of the line connecting the femoral trochlear midpoint and upper tibial midpoint. The ankle center was identified as the midpoint of the upper border of the talus [18]. The line connecting the three centers formed the coronal alignment of the knee (Figure 1A)
The measurements were performed by the senior surgeon or a trainee under his supervision.
Demographic data and body mass indices were collected for all patients.
Data Analysis
Deformity was measured as deviation from 180°. Neutrally aligned knees were given as 0°. In the coronal plane varus deformity was indicated as negative (-) and valgus deformity as positive (+). In the sagittal plane flexion deformity was indicated as positive (+) and hyperextension as negative (-). Interobserver agreement for the measurement of the radiographs was analyzed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. The radiographic and navigation measurements were used as baselines to compare with the clinical measurements. Comparisons between groups were made using the Wilcoxon sign ranks test. The Bland Altman method was used to assess agreement between two methods of measurement [19]. For this the differences were always calculated as clinical minus from the baseline (Radiographic or Navigation).
he patient population included 28 males and 26 females with a mean age of 68.4 (SD 8.6). The body mass index (BMI) ranged from 25 to 48.5 with a mean of 32.7 (SD 5.5). The inter-observer agreement between the two sets of radiographic measurement was good (ICC = 0.993). For 53 cases the difference in alignment between observers was 1° or zero. Only one case had a difference of 2°.
Coronal plane assessment
Using HKA radiographic measurement of coronal alignment as a baseline, the mean difference of the clinical measurements was 0.8° (range -12° to +12°). The Wilcoxon sign ranks test showed no statistical difference between the clinical and radiographic measurements (p = 0.173). However the Bland Altman limits of agreement (± 95 % CI) were ± 9.6° around a mean of 0.8°. Taking differences of 3° as significant, seven knees assessed as valgus clinically, appeared varus on radiographs. Three clinically straight knees showed significant varus and one clinically valgus knee was neutral on the radiograph. Mean BMI for the incorrectly assessed knees was 33.7.
Using computer navigation measurements as a baseline, the mean difference of the clinical measurements was 0.3° (range -10.5° to +9°). The Wilcoxon signed ranks test showed no statistical difference between the clinical and computer system measurements (p = 0.626). The Bland Altman limits of agreement were ± 9.4°. Taking differences of 3° as significant, four knees assessed as valgus clinically, measured varus with the navigation system and one knee assessed clinically as varus was measured valgus. Two clinically straight knees showed significant varus and one clinically valgus knee was neutral as measured by the navigation system. Mean BMI for the incorrectly assessed knees was 32.3.
Sagittal assessment
For flexion deformities no radiographic measurements were available so computer navigation measurements were the only baseline. The mean difference from clinical measurements was 1.6° (range +19° to -11.5°). The Wilcoxon signed ranks test showed no statistical difference between the two measurements (p = 0.156). However the Bland Altman limits of agreement were ± 12.6°. When stratified for BMI, the Bland Altman limits of agreement were significantly wider for patients with BMI < 30> 30 (± 8.7° about a mean difference of -0.9°). Taking differences of 3° as significant 31(63%) patients had a different deformity as assessed by the navigation system when compared to the clinical measurements.
Most of the time surgeons record the clinical deformity measurements in the patient notes. This forms a part of pre-operative planning, and post-operatively it becomes an important reference point against which improvement in alignment is compared and is therefore vital in patient evaluation. It may also serve as a legal record in cases of litigation. In our study we found clinical measurement to be an unreliable method of deformity assessment.
Our results show that the error of clinical measurement when compared to either HKA radiographs or computer navigation measurements did not reach statistical significance; however when analyzed further with the Bland Altman method, the limits of agreement were quite wide for both coronal and sagittal measurements.
In the coronal plane, the difference between clinical and radiological measurements could be up to 10° either side in 95% of the cases. Similarly in the sagittal plane, clinical measurements could be off by as much as 12° compared to computer measurement. We feel that such limit of agreement is simply too wide to be safely accepted as a surgical standard. We therefore maintain that clinical measurement is at best an estimate of the true amount of deformity with a very wide margin of error. Within this cohort it showed the varus knee as valgus and vice versa in 13% of patients. It should also be pointed out that the technique that we used in this series was very methodical compared to the usual visual estimate employed in day to day practice which is done without any reference to the hip centre. This undoubtedly has improved the accuracy of our clinical measurement of coronal deformity.
Gallie and co-workers have shown that visual estimation of fixed flexion deformity has a higher mean error compared to navigation using radiographs as standard [20]. Our result showed that clinical measurement of flexion deformity could leave a margin of error as high a 12°.
There was some expectation that increased body mass index would influence error in clinical measurement but we did not demonstrate this in our series. On the contrary the clinical measurements of flexion deformity in patient with body mass index below 30 showed a higher mean error compared to patients with body mass index above 30 when navigation measurements were used as the baseline.
As the two baselines that could be used to check the clinical measurements against do not always agree, it was hard to assess when they were “correct”. There is evidence in the literature to show that radiographic and navigation measurements of knee deformity although well correlate, do not give the same absolute values [21,22].
Human assessment of angles is known to be poor [6,23] and the accuracy of alignment estimates may be variable (±5°) 15. The use of knee radiographs has also been found to be an inaccurate measure of mechanical lower limb alignment [24]. Full-length hip-knee-ankle radiographs are susceptible to limb positioning errors with apparent variations in alignment produced as a result of knee flexion or rotation [25]. Authors claimed weight bearing and collateral ligaments as factors which could account for the differences in measurements between radiographs and computer navigation [22]. Collateral ligament laxity may vary between individuals and has been found to be different in males and females [26]. The knee coronal alignment has been found to be dynamic and changes with posture as was found in a study on normal knees [27,28].
We propose that the discrepancy between radiographic and navigation methods is at least partly explained by the absence of the effect of gravity with navigation when the measurements were taken supine, even though we have tried to simulate this by applying axial load to the foot. It was, of course, necessary to expose the joint sufficiently to gain access to the bony landmarks during navigation. Even though this initial exposure was consistently kept to a minimum, the full effect of this on the actual deformity prior to exposure was impossible to determine. It may well have also contributed to the observed discrepancy between radiographic and computer measurement.
Methodical clinical measurement of knee deformity as described in this paper gives too wide a margin of error and should not be relied upon in isolation. A combination of other modalities like long leg radiographs and computer navigation will add to the assessment, but one should consider the effect of posture on the measurements when assessing the knee deformity.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
