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

Three distal femoral axes have been described to aid in alignment of the femoral component; the Trans Epicondylar Axis (TEA), the Posterior Condylar Axis (PCA) and the Antero Posterior (AP) axis. Our aim was to identify if there was a reproducible relationship between the axes which would aid alignment of the femoral component. This is the first study compare all three distal femoral axes with each other using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a Caucasian population. Our sample group represents real life patients awaiting total knee arthroplasty (TKA), as opposed non-arthritic or cadaveric knees. We identified the relationship between these rotational axes by performing MRI scans on 89 patients awaiting TKA with patient-specific instrumentation. Measurements were taken by two observers. Patients had a mean age of 62.5 years (range 32–91). 51 patients were female. The mean angle between the TEA and the AP axis was 92.78° with a standard deviation of 2.51° (range 88° – 99°). The mean angle between the AP axis and the PCA was 95.43° with a standard deviation of 2.75° (range 85° – 105°). The mean angle between the TEA and the PCA was 2.78° with a standard deviation of 1.91° (range 0° – 10°). We conclude that while there is a reproducible relationship between the differing femoral axes, there is a significant range in the relationship between the femoral axes. This range may lead to greater inaccuracy than has previously been appreciated when defining the rotation of the femoral component. There is most variation between the PCA and the AP axis. The TEA's relationship with the PCA and AP appears important in defining rotation. Due to the well accepted difficulty in defining the TEA intra-operatively, there may be a role for patient-specific instrumentation in TKA surgery with pre-operative MRI

Three distal femoral axes have been described to aid in alignment of the femoral component; the Trans Epicondylar Axis (TEA), the Posterior Condylar Axis (PCA) and the Antero Posterior (AP) axis. Our aim was to identify if there was a reproducible relationship between the axes. Hopefully this will aid the surgeon to more accurately judge the rotation of the femoral cutting block by using the axes with the least variation. This is the first study compare all three distal femoral axes with each other using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a Caucasian population awaiting total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We identified the relationship between these axes by performing MRI scans on 89 patients awaiting TKA with patient-specific instrumentation. Measurements were taken by two observers. Patients had a mean age of 62.5 years (range 32–91). 51 patients were female. The mean angle between the TEA and AP axis was 92.78°, standard deviation (SD) 2.51° (range 88°–99°). The mean angle between the AP axis and PCA was 95.43°, SD 2.75° (range 85°–105°). The mean angle between the TEA and PCA was 2.78°, SD 1.91° (range 0°–10°). We conclude that while there is a reproducible relationship between the differing femoral axes, there is a significant range in the relationship between the femoral axes. This range may lead to greater inaccuracy than has previously been appreciated when defining the rotation of the femoral component. There is most variation between the PCA and the AP axis. Most systems have a cutting block with 3° of external rotation from the PCA and this would be parallel to the TEA in the majority, but not all, cases in this series. This data suggests that if the surgeon is to pick two axes to reference from, one should include the TEA