Abstract
Introduction
The epicondylar axis of the elbow is a surface anatomical approximation of the true flexion-extension (F-E) axis used in the application of an external fixator/elbow arthroplasty. We hypothesise that the epicondylar axis coincides with the true F-E axis in terms of both angular displacement and position (ie. offset). This suggests that it can serve as a good landmark in total dynamic external fixator application and elbow arthroplasty.
Methods
Three-dimensional elbow models were obtained through manual segmentation and reconstruction from 142±40 slices of CT scans per elbow in 15 cadeveric specimens. Epicondylar axis was defined to be the axis through the 2 epicondyles manually identified on the elbow models. F-E axis was defined to be the normal of a circle fitted on 20 points identified on the trochlear groove. The long axis of the elbow was identified through a line fit through the center of the distal humerus on several slices along the elbow CT. Angle between the long axis and epicondylar axis was measured. Angular deviation of the epicondylar axis and the F-E axis was calculated in reference to the long axis. All axes were projected onto the orthogonal planes on the elbow CTs and all measurements were repeated. Angular differences in the axial, saggital and coronal planes are described in internal/external rotation, flexion/extension and valgus/varus respectively. Offset in the axial and coronal planes are described in the following directions respectively: proximal/distal and anterior/posterior respectively. Comparisons between angles were performed using student's t-test.
Results
Angle between the long axis and the epicondylar axis in our study (85.9±5.30) was not significantly different when compared to an existing study (87.3±2.80) (p=0.327). The epicondylar axis deviates from the true F-E axis by 1.9±4.50 (p=0.523) in flexion, 2.1±3.40 (p=0.442) varus, and 0.5±2.70 (p=0.851) in external rotation with an overall angular deviation of 2.2±4.80 (p=0.204). There was no statistical significance difference in the angle deviations mentioned. The offset between the epicondylar axis and the F-E axis was 15.6±3.4 mm anterior and 9.4±2.9 mm distal with an overall offset of 17.6±2.5 mm.
Discussion
Our study demonstrated small and statistically insignificant angular difference between the epicondylar axis and the F-E axis. However, offset between the axes exists and may be clinically significant. When the epicondylar axis is used as an approximation to the natural F-E axis, this offset may introduce a moment on elbow flexion resulting in additional strain on the elbow collateral ligaments and dynamic external fixators. Implications of this as well as ligament balancing and implant stress-strain patterns in elbow arthroplasty merit further research with potential modification of technique and jigs.
Significance
Although the angular difference between between the epicondylar and F-E axes was not statistically significant, an offset between the axes exist. Further research is required to elucidate its impact and the need for modification on elbow implants and external fixators
