The pourpose of this study was to investigate the variability of the posterior condylar angle and the whiteside’s angle to establish if three degrees of external rotation of the femoral component produce the correct rotational alignment, in varus knee 33 patients (33 knee) affected by varus osteoarthritic knee (5°–30°)underwent a preoperative CT scan examination of the knee and the hip. On the axial views, we have evaluated the femoral anteversion, the posterior condylar angle and the whitesiede’s angle. The mean femoral anteversion angle was 5.5°±13.7° (−24°;33°). The mean posterior condylar angle was 6.1°±2.5° (1°;14°). The mean intraobserver error was 0.9°. In 60.6% of the cases the angle was greater than 5°. The mean Witheside’s angle was 6°±3.5° (1°;16.5°). The mean intraobserver error was 0.8°. In 51.5% of the cases the angle was greater than 5°. Both the posterior condylar angle and the Whiteside’s angle showed values almost double than three degrees proposed as standard rotation for the femoral component. The method of three degrees standard of external rotation lead to relative internal rotation of the femoral component in TKR also for varus knee.
Patello-femoral tracking and polyethylene wear are strongly dependent on rotational alignment of the components in total knee arthroplasty. In the current literature four methods to obtain correct axial femoral alignment are reported: the transepicondylar axis method, Whiteside’s method, the tibial axis method and 3° external rotation of posterior condyles method. Because of its simplicity the last of these is the most popular method used at present. But it is also the most accurate? The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the 3° external rotation method, comparing it to the transepicondylar axis and the White-side’s A-P line. We performed a CT scan examination of the hip and the knee of 40 patients scheduled to undergo a total knee arthroplasty. Seven cases of valgus deformity were excluded from the study, leaving 34 cases. The mean age was 72.4 and the left knee was involved in 23 cases. The mean height was 159 cm and the mean weight was 76.6 kg. The mean varus deformity was 14° (min 5° – max 30°). CT scan was conducted using a Picker PQCT machine. Two axial images were obtained in all the patients: one of the femoral neck and one of the knee with good visualisation of the posterior aspect of the condyles of the femur and epicondyles. We measured the following angles: the femoral anteversion angle (between the femoral neck line and the posterior condylar line), the posterior condylar angle (between the posterior condylar line and the transepicondylar axis) and the Whiteside’s angle (between the posterior condylar line and the perpendicular line to the White-side’s A-P line). The mean femoral anteversion angle was 5.5°± 13.7° (min -24°; max 33°). The mean posterior condylar angle was 6.1°± 2.5° (min 1°; max 14°). In 20 cases (60.6%) the posterior condylar angle was greater than 5°. The mean Whiteside’s angle was 6°±3.5° (min 1°; max 16.5°). In 17 cases (51.5%) it was greater than 5°. Both the posterior condylar angle and the White-side’s angle showed average values, which doubled the 3° proposed as standard for external rotational alignment of the femoral component, with maximum values of 14° and 16.5° respectively. More than 50% of the cases showed a posterior condylar angle grater than 5°. The two methods (transepicondylar and Whiteside’s line) are complementary. The posterior condylar axis and the Whiteside’s line were not altered by severe varus deformity or femoral neck retro- or anteversion. The 3° external rotation of the posterior condyle line is not recommended as a standard procedure to determine the degree of external rotation of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty.
