Hosseini, Ali

Background: In the age of individualised arthroplasty, the question arises whether currently available standard implants adequately consider femoral condylar morphology (FCM). Therefore, physiological reference values of FCM are needed. The aim was to establish physiological reference values for anterior (ACO) and posterior condylar offset (PCO) as well as for the length of the medial (LMC) and lateral femoral condyles (LLC). Methods: The knee joints of 517 patients (mean age: 52.3 years (±16.8)) were analysed retrospectively using MRI images. Medial (med) and lateral (lat) ACO and PCO, as well as LMC and LLC, were measured. All FCM parameters were examined for association with age, gender, side and osteoarthritis. Results: Mean ACOmed was 2.8 mm (±2.5), mean ACOlat was 6.7 mm (±2.3), mean PCOmed was 25.7 mm (±4.6), mean PCOlat was 23.6 mm (±3.0), mean LMC was 63.7 mm (±5.0) and mean LLC was 64.4 mm (±5.0). Except for PCOmed, the mean values of all other FCM parameters were significantly higher in male knees compared to female knees. ACOmed and PCOmed showed significant side-specific differences. There were no significant differences in relation to age and osteoarthritis. Conclusion: The study showed significant differences in FCM side- and gender-specifically in adult knees. These aspects should be considered in the discussion of individual and gender-specific knee joint replacement.

Background: Humeral offset (HO) and glenoidal offset (GO) are important morphological parameters in diagnostics and therapy for shoulder pathologies. However, physiological reference values have not yet been sufficiently determined. The aim of the present study was to establish physiological reference values for shoulder offset parameters (SOPs). Methods: MRI images of the shoulder joints of 800 patients (mean age: 50.13 years [±16.01]) were analysed retrospectively. HO, GO, lateral glenoidal humeral offset (LGHO), humeral shaft axis offset (HAO) and cortical offset (CO) were measured. SOPs were examined for associations with age, gender, side and osteoarthritis. Results: The mean HO was 26.19 (±2.70), the mean GO was 61.79 (±5.67), the mean LGHO was 54.49 (±4.69), the mean HAO was 28.17 (±2.82) and the mean CO was 16.70 (±3.08). For all SOPs, significantly higher values were measured in male shoulders. There was a significantly (p < 0.001) higher mean value for HO, GO and LGHO in right shoulders. There was a significant correlation between age and LGHO, and HAO and CO, but not between age and HO or GO. Shoulders with osteoarthritis and non-osteoarthritis did not differ in the mean value of HO, GO, LGHO and HAO, except for CO (p = 0.049). Conclusion: Reference values for SOPs in the adult shoulder joint were determined for the first time. Significant gender-specific differences were found for all measured SOPs. In addition, it was seen that for some SOPs, the joint side and the patient’s age has to be taken into account in shoulder diagnostics and surgery.