What Differences in Morphologic Features of the Knee Exist Among Patients of Various Races? A Systematic Review

Abstract

BackgroundMost TKA prostheses are designed based on the anatomy of white patients. Individual studies have identified key anthropometric differences between the knees of the white population and other major ethnic groups, yet there is limited understanding of what these findings may indicate if analyzed collectively.Question/purposeWhat are the differences in morphologic features of the distal femur and proximal tibia among and within various ethnicities?MethodsA systematic review of the PubMed database and a hand-search of article bibliographies identified 235 potentially eligible English-language studies. Studies were excluded if they did not include morphology results or had insufficient data for analysis, were unrelated to the distal femur or proximal tibia, were conducted in pediatric patients or those undergoing unicondylar knee arthroplasty, or bone surface measurements were obtained for trauma products. This left 30 eligible studies (9050 knees). Study quality was assessed and reported as good, fair, or poor according to the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Morphometric data for the distal femur and proximal tibia were available for four ethnic groups: East Asian (23 studies; 5543 knees), white (11 studies; 3111 knees), Indian (three studies; 283 knees), and black (three studies; 113 knees). Although relatively underrepresented, the knees from the Indian and black studies were maintained for hypothesis-generating purposes and to highlight crucial gaps in the data. The two key dimensions for selecting a suitable implant based on a patient’s unique anatomy—AP length and mediolateral (ML) width—were assessed for the femur and tibia, in addition to aspect ratio, calculated by dividing the ML width by the AP length. Study measurement techniques were compared visually when possible to ensure that each pooled study conducted a similar measurement process. Any significant measurement outliers were reviewed for eligibility to determine if the measurement techniques and landmarks used were comparable to the other studies included.ResultsWhite patients had larger femoral AP measurements than East Asians (62 mm, [95% CI, 57–66 mm] vs 59 mm, [95% CI, 54–63 mm]; mean difference, 3 mm; p < 0.001), a smaller femoral aspect ratio than East Asians (1.20, [95% CI, 1.11–1.29] vs 1.25, [95% CI, 1.16–1.34]; mean difference, 0.05; p = 0.001), and a larger tibial aspect ratio than black patients (1.55, [95% CI, 1.40–1.71] vs 1.49, [95% CI, 1.33–1.64]; mean difference, 0.06; p = 0.005).ConclusionsThis analysis uncovered differences of size (AP height and ML width of the femur and tibia) and shape (tibial and femoral aspect ratios) among knees from white, East Asian, and black populations. Future research is needed to understand the clinical implications of these discrepancies and to provide additional data with underrepresented groups.

Outcome after treatment of osteoarthritis with open-wedge high-tibial osteotomy with a plate: 2-year results of a Japanese cohort study

“…[6][7][8][9][10][11] Since patients of East Asia have different tibial geometric dimensions, the TomoFix small plate (Synthes GmbH, Oberdorf, Switzerland) was developed. 12 The primary objective of this study was to evaluate patient reported outcomes (PROs) using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) considering functional outcome as the most important factor for patients to assess the success of an operation.…”

Femoral Component Sizing in Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: Existing Guidelines Do Not Work for Indian Patients

“…Height and gender based guidelines have been used out of experience in European population [13]. The inventory of popular TKR and UKR is based on anthropometric measurements in Caucasian knees [14,15].…”

Anthropometric differences in the tibial tuberosity to trochlear groove measurement in an African population

“…In a systematic review, Kim et al, also highlighted morphological differences that exist in certain anatomical features and measurements around the knee. 20 Koerner et al have also questioned the definition of 'normal' femoral versions among sexes and ethnicities. 13 Our data brings about the discussion of possible ethnic differences when it comes to the TTTG measurement.…”