Morphological Measurement and Clinical Significance of Abnormal Development of Distal Femur with Hemophilia Knee Arthritis: A Consideration on the Renewal of Total Knee Prosthesis

Abstract

Objective: The knee joint of hemophiliacs may face the result of local morphological changes due to long-term irritation of synovitis. This study aims to elucidate the morphological characteristics of distal femur in hemophilic arthritis (HA) and compare the compatibility of three types of prostheses with the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) dimensions of the femoral osteotomy surface.

Methods: This study retrospectively and randomly selected 50 patients with HA registered for treatment at our hospital from June 2016 to August 2022 as the study subjects, with an equal number of male osteoarthritis (OA) patients and healthy male individuals set as the control group. This study used medical digitalization software to simulate osteotomies on the distal femur during total knee arthroplasties (TKA) for 50 patients with HA, OA patients, and the healthy population, respectively, and measure the morphological parameters to compare with three commonly used femoral components of TKA in clinical practice. The differences between the femur resection of anteroposterior and mediolateral (FRAP, FRML) osteotomy surface and the prosthesis’s BOX-AP/ML were compared in three prostheses. One-way ANOVA and multiple Kruskal–Wallis H test were used for the normal or non-normal distribution data, and pairwise comparisons between groups were conducted using the Bonferroni method, and the linear correlation analysis was utilized to assess the relationship between section femoral morphological data and prosthesis parameters.

Result: In HA patients, the morphological characteristics of the distal femur were shown as shorter than femur AP (FAP), medial and lateral condyle anterior–posterior dimension (FMCAP, FLCAP), notch width (NW), posterolateral condyle height (PLCH), posteromedial condyle width (PMCW), and posterior condylar axis length (PCAL) dimension. They had comparatively smaller femur section aspect ratios (p < 0.005). They showed longer posterolateral condyle width (PLCW), anterior condyle mediolateral dimension (FRACML), anterolateral condyle height (ALCH), and femur resection anterior condylar mediolateral (FRACML) dimension (p < 0.005). They showed larger distal femur aspect ratio and resection aspect ratio (FAR, FRAR, p < 0.005). All selected prostheses showed ML undercoverage under similar AP dimensions, and ML undersizing of Attune systems was more obvious in three femoral prostheses.

Conclusion: The distal femur morphological change of HA patient is shown as smaller AP dimension, narrow posterior condyle spacing, lower and shallower trochlear, thinner anterior condyle, wider and lower intercondylar notch and higher posterior-lateral condyle. The selected prostheses showed ML undercoverage under similar AP dimensions. This typical morphological tendency of the distal femur seems to warrant consideration in the process of knee joint prosthesis upgrading.

Keywords

Distal Femur / Hemophilic Arthritis / Matching Degree / Morphological Malformation / Osteotomy Surface

References

[1] Luck JV Jr, Silva M, Rodriguez-Merchan EC, et al. Hemophilic arthropathy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004; 12(4): 234–245.

[2] Liddle AD, Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Evidence-based Management of the Knee in hemophilia. JBJS Rev. 2017; 5(8): e12.

[3] Arnold WD, Hilgartner MW. Hemophilic arthropathy. Current concepts of pathogenesis and management. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1977; 59(3): 287–305.

[4] Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Effects of hemophilia on articulations of children and adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 328: 7–13.

[5] Huang ZY, Huang Q, Zeng HJ, Ma J, Shen B, Zhou ZK, et al. Tranexamic acid may benefit patients undergoing total hip/knee arthroplasty because of haemophilia. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019; 20(1): 402.

[6] Dong XH, Huang XH, Chen M, Chang YH, Ling M, Yang B. Three-dimensional morphometric differences of resected distal femurs and proximal tibias in osteoarthritic and normal knees. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22(1): 1013.

[7] Lewis PL, Campbell DG, Lorimer MF, Requicha F, W-Dahl A, Robertsson O. Primary Total knee arthroplasty revised for instability: a detailed registry analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2022; 37(2): 286–297.

[8] Fong TS, Kim SC, Kim JE, Lee ES, Kim TW, Lee YS. Morphometric assessment of resected femoral cut surface in Korean knees and its fitting with Western-designed femoral components. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(9): 1929–1937.

[9] Incesoy MA, Gungoren N, Aliyev O, et al. Distal femur morphology and the suitability of standard guides for knee arthroplasty in the Turkish population. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2024; 58(1): 39–44.

[10] Bellemans J, Carpentier K, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J, Victor J. The John Insall award: both morphotype and gender influence the shape of the knee in patients undergoing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(1): 29–36.

[11] Fehring TK, Odum SM, Hughes J, Springer BD, Beaver WB Jr. Differences between the sexes in the anatomy of the anterior condyle of the knee. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2009; 91(10): 2335–2341.

[12] Vaidya SV, Ranawat CS, Aroojis A, Laud NS. Anthropometric measurements to design total knee prostheses for the Indian population. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15(1): 79–85.

[13] Kim TK, Phillips M, Bhandari M, Watson J, Malhotra R. What differences in morphologic features of the knee exist among patients of various races? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(1): 170–182.

[14] Mahoney OM, Kinsey T. Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and clinical consequences. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2010; 92(5): 1115–1121.

[15] Zhang Y, Wang X, Wu Z, Xia Q, Shao Y. Highly variable femoral morphology in osteoarthritic Chinese: are prostheses today sufficiently suitable? J Knee Surg. 2017; 30(9): 936–942.

[16] De Muylder J, Victor J, Cornu O, et al. Total knee arthroplasty in patients with substantial deformities using primary knee components. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23(12): 3653–3659.

[17] Ma QL, Lipman JD, Cheng CK, Wang XN, Zhang YY, You B. A comparison between Chinese and Caucasian 3-dimensional bony morphometry in Presimulated and Postsimulated osteotomy for Total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(9): 2878–2886.

[18] Siddiqi A, Anis H, Borukhov I, Piuzzi NS. Osseous morphological differences in knee osteoarthritis. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2022; 104(9): 805–812.

[19] Ke S, Ran T, Ma T, Qin Y, Zhang B, Wang M. A morphometric study of the distal femoral resected surface in osteoarthritis knees of the patients in Southwest China and a comparison with femoral components in six Total knee arthroplasty systems. Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(4): 953–960.

[20] Merchant AC, Arendt EA, Dye SF, Fredericson M, Grelsamer RP, Leadbetter WB, et al. The female knee: anatomic variations and the female-specific total knee design. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(12): 3059–3065.

[21] Wise BL, Liu F, Kritikos L, Lynch JA, Parimi N, Zhang Y, et al. The association of distal femur and proximal tibia shape with sex: the osteoarthritis initiative. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016; 46(1): 20–26.

[22] Matsuda S, Matsuda H, Miyagi T, Sasaki K, Iwamoto Y, Miura H. Femoral condyle geometry in the normal and varus knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 349: 183–188.

[23] Hamel J, Pohlmann H, Schramm W. Radiological evaluation of chronic hemophilic arthropathy by the Pettersson score: problems in correlation in adult patients. Skeletal Radiol. 1988; 17(1): 32–36.

[24] Cohen I, Heim M, Martinowitz U, et al. Orthopaedic outcome of total knee replacement in haemophilia A. Haemophilia. 2000; 6(2): 104–109.

[25] Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Total knee replacement in haemophilic arthropathy. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2007; 89(2): 186–188.

[26] Goddard NJ, Mann HA, Lee CA. Total knee replacement in patients with end-stage haemophilic arthropathy: 25-year results. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2010; 92(8): 1085–1089.

[27] Legroux-Gerot I, Strouk G, Parquet A, et al. Total knee arthroplasty in hemophilic arthropathy. Jt Bone Spine. 2003; 70(1): 22–32.

[28] Huang C-H, Cheng C-K, Liau J-J, et al. Morphometrical comparison between the resected surfaces in osteoarthritic knees and porous-coated anatomic knee prosthesis. J Musculoskeletal Res. 2011; 04(1): 39–46.

[29] Erkman MJ, Walker PS. A study of knee geometry applied to the design of condylar prostheses. Biomed Eng. 1974; 9(1): 14–17.

[30] Ewe TW, Ang HL, Chee EK, Ng WM. An analysis of the relationship between the morphometry of the distal femur, and total knee arthroplasty implant design. Malays Orthop J. 2009; 3: 24–28.

[31] Hitt K, Shurman JR 2nd, Greene K, et al. Anthropometric measurements of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2003; 85(Suppl 4): 115–122.

[32] Dai Y, Scuderi GR, Penninger C, Bischoff JE, Rosenberg A. Increased shape and size offerings of femoral components improve fit during total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22(12): 2931–2940.

[33] Conley S, Rosenberg A, Crowninshield R. The female knee: anatomic variations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007; 15(Suppl 1): S31–S36.

[34] Ranawat CS. The patellofemoral joint in total condylar knee arthroplasty. Pros and cons based on five-to ten-year follow-up observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; 205: 93–99.

[35] Dalury DF, Mason JB, Murphy JA, Adams MJ. Analysis of the outcome in male and female patients using a unisex total knee replacement system. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2009; 91(3): 357–360.

[36] Chin KR, Dalury DF, Zurakowski D, Scott RD. Intraoperative measurements of male and female distal femurs during primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2002; 15(4): 213–217.

[37] Insall JN, Easley ME, Scott WN. Surgical Techniques and Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Vol 2. 3rd ed. New York: ChurchillLivingstone; 2001. p. 1553–1620.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.