Gender differences in the knees of Chinese population.
The goal of this study was to characterize the geometry of the distal femur and proximal tibia in the Chinese population. Three-dimensional models of twenty female and twenty male knees were constructed using CT images. The morphologic measurements of the distal femur included mediolateral (ML) and anteroposterior dimension of medial and lateral condyles (MAP, LAP), femoral aspect ratio (ML/LAP), medial and lateral condylar width, intercondylar notch width, notch width index (NWI), and trochlear groove orientation. The sagittal profiles of the medial and lateral femoral condyles and tibial plateaus were also characterized. The results showed that the size of the distal femur of the females was significantly smaller than that of the males. Furthermore, when normalized by LAP, the females had a significantly narrower distal femur (ML), and a shorter MAP compared to the males. In the sagittal plane, the radius of the lateral distal circle of the femur was significantly smaller than that of the medial condyle in both genders. There were no significant gender differences in the proximal tibial geometry. The data of the present study may enable suitable modification of total knee prosthesis sizing/geometry for Asia-Pacific patients.
Yue
Bing
B
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Implant, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Varadarajan
Kartik M
KM
Ai
Songtao
S
Tang
Tingting
T
Rubash
Harry E
HE
Li
Guoan
G
D000328:Adult; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; D044466:Asian People; D005260:Female; D005269:Femur / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D006801:Humans; D007717:Knee / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008953:Models, Anatomic; D012016:Reference Values; D012737:Sex Factors
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Dec;466(12):3059-65
18820981
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Nov;82(8):1189-95
11132285
J Orthop Res. 2009 Jul;27(7):871-8
19127520
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003 Dec;18(10):924-32
14580836
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15 Suppl 1:S31-6
17766787
Knee. 2009 Oct;16(5):341-7
19230678
Clin Anat. 2009 May;22(4):517-22
19260073
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Oct;(331):35-46
8895617
J Biomech. 2005 Feb;38(2):197-208
15598446
Coll Antropol. 2005 Dec;29(2):409-14
16417136
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2008 Jan;47(1):88-91
18077497
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Nov;466(11):2724-9
18719975
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Jan;15(1):79-85
10654467
Am J Sports Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;28(1):68-73
10653546
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Oct;466(10):2491-9
18704612
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001 Jan;40(1):70-3
11157144
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Jan;33(1):102-7
15611005
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Nov;466(11):2711-6
18719972
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Jan;26(1):124-30
20149574
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A Suppl 4:115-22
14652402
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2007 Dec;10(6):447-56
17891677
J Knee Surg. 2002 Fall;15(4):213-7
12416902
J Arthroplasty. 1996 Feb;11(2):166-73
8648311
J Biomech Eng. 2007 Dec;129(6):937-43
18067400
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Oct;22(7 Suppl 3):27-31
17919589
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Nov;(416):197-207
14646762
Knee. 2006 Jan;13(1):12-4
16122927