Distance from the magnification device contributes to differences in lower leg length measured in patients with TSF correction

Accuracy of the hexapod external fixator in treating tibial angular deformities with or without limb length discrepancy: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Hexapod external fixator systems allow simultaneous deformity correction in multiple planes as well as limb lengthening. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a hexapod frame (smart correction frame) in different types of tibial deformities requiring correction with or without lengthening.

METHODS

A total of 54 tibial angular deformities and limb length discrepancies operated with a hexapod frame between January 2015 and January 2021 were classified into four groups: "Group A ( n  = 13): only lengthening," "Group B ( n  = 14): lengthening and uniplanar correction," "Group C ( n  = 16): only uniplanar correction," and "Group D ( n  = 11): biplanar correction." The accuracy of angular deformity correction/lengthening was calculated by dividing the actual correction/lengthening achieved after frame removal by the preoperative planned lengthening/correction.

RESULTS

The lengthening accuracy in Group A and Group B was 96.3 ± 7.1% and 95.7 ± 5.9%, respectively ( P  = 0.685). The angular deformity correction accuracy was 85.1 ± 9.9% for Group B, 85.2 ± 13.9% for Group C, and 80.2 ± 18.4% for Group D ( P  = 0.852). A revision program was performed in six cases (1 in Group B, 1 in Group C, and 4 in Group D) for full correction of the deformities.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of tibial lengthening is high with the hexapod frame and is minimally affected by simultaneous deformity correction; however, the accuracy of angular correction slightly reduces as the deformity becomes more complex. Surgeons should be aware that reprogramming may be required after complex deformity correction.

Accuracy, inter- and intrarater reliability, and user-experience of high tibial osteotomy angle measurements for preoperative planning: manual planning PACS versus semi-automatic software programs

Purpose

To compare the accuracy, inter- and intrarater reliability, and user-experience of manual and semi-automatic preoperative leg-alignment measurement planning software for high tibial osteotomy (HTO).

Methods

Thirty patients (31 lower limbs) who underwent a medial opening wedge HTO between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively included. The mechanical lateral distal femur angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), and planned correction angle were measured on preoperative long-leg full weight-bearing radiographs utilising PACS Jivex Review® v5.2 manual and TraumaCad® v2.4 semi-automatic planning software. Independent measurements were performed by four raters. Two raters repeated the measurements. Accuracy in the standard error of measurement (SEM), inter- and intrarater reliability, and user-experience were analysed. Additionally, measurements errors of more than 3° were remeasured and reanalysed.

Results

The SEMs of all measured varus malalignment angles and planned correction angle were within 0.8° of accuracy for both software programs. Measurements utilising the manual software demonstrated moderate interrater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)-values for the mLDFA and mMPTA, and an excellent interrater ICC-value for the correction angle (0.810, 0.779, and 0.981, respectively). Measurements utilising the semi-automatic software indicated excellent interrater ICC-values for the mLDFA, mMPTA, and correction angle (0.980, 0.909, and 0.989, respectively). The intrarater reliability varied substantially per angle, presenting excellent intrarater agreements by both raters (ICC >  0.900) for the correction angle in each software program as well as poor-to-excellent ICC-values for the mLDFA (0.282–0.951 and 0.316–0.926) and mMPTA (0.893–0.934 and 0.594–0.941) in both the manual planning and semi-automatic software. Regarding user-experience, semi-automatic software was preferred by two raters, while the other two raters had no distinctive preference. After remeasurement of five outliers, excellent interrater ICC-values were found for the mLDFA (0.913) and mMPTA (0.957).

Conclusions

Semi-automatic software outperforms the manual software when user-experience and outliers are considered. However, both software programs provide similar performance after remeasurement of the human-related erroneous outliers. For clinical practice, both programs can be utilised for HTO planning.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic study, Level III.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40634-022-00475-x.

Influence of axial limb rotation on radiographic lower limb alignment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The influence of limb malrotation on long-leg radiographs (LLR) is frequently discussed in literature. This systematic review aimed to describe the influence of limb rotation on alignment measurements alone and in combination with knee flexion, and determine its clinical impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in June 2021 using the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and Embase. The search term ((radiograph OR X-ray) AND (position OR rotation) AND limb alignment) was used. Database query, record screening, and study inclusion and exclusion were performed by two reviewers independently. Experimental studies (using either specimens or synthetic bones) or clinical studies (prospective or retrospective using radiographs of patients) analyzing the influence of limb rotation on anatomic and mechanical limb alignment measurements were included. Characteristics and results of the included studies were summarized, simplified, and grouped for comparison to answer the research question. Studies were compared descriptively, and no meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were included showing large heterogeneity, comprising studies with cadavers, patients, and synthetic bones. Most studies (7 out of 8) reported that external rotation (ER) causes less apparent valgus and leads to more varus and internal rotation (IR) causes more valgus and leads to less varus. However, there is no consensus on the extent of rotation influencing alignment measures. Studies reported about an average change of > 2° (n = 4) and < 2° (n = 4) hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) between 15°IR and 15°ER. There is a consensus that the impact of rotation on mechanical alignment is higher if additional sagittal knee angulation, such as knee flexion, is present. All five studies analyzing the influence of rotation combined with knee flexion (5°-15°) showed an HKA change of > 2° between 15°IR and 15°ER.

CONCLUSION

Malrotation is frequently present on LLR, possibly influencing the measured alignment especially in knees with extension deficit. Surgeons must consider this when measuring and treating deformities (high tibial osteotomy or total knee arthroplasties), and analyzing surgical outcomes. Especially in patients with osteoarthritis with knee extension deficits or postoperative swelling, the effect of malrotation is significantly greater.