ArticleOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[The correct tibial slope? Comparison of measuring methods].
Article in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFrom a biomechanical point of view, the tibial slope plays a significant role in relation to the loading of the ligament structures in the knee joint. Currently, there are various methods of measurement for the tibial slope, which makes it difficult to compare the measurement results obtained. These differences can be decisive factors for the indication and the extent respectively of the correction of the tibial slope. The aim of this work is to present the differences in results between the measurement methods, and to compare these with the posterior tibial slope (PTS).
methodsBy means of a comparative analysis, six measurement techniques for the tibial slope were examined. Using six parameters (correlation coefficient, range, deviation of the average slope value, correction coefficient, difference in the corrected measurements, range of the corrected measurements), these results were compared with the PTS. In this prospective study, the PTS was measured in 107 (49 male, 58 female, age 42.6 ± 23.4 years) strictly lateral plain radiological projections of the tibia with the talocrural joint in comparison with the measurement methods according to Han, Brazier, Moore and Harvey, Pietrini and LaPrade and a supratuberosity measurement.
resultsThe posterior slope was observed at a mean value of 6.9° (± 8.6°). Compared with the PTS, tibial slope values were increased in 55.5 % of all measurements examined and decreased in 42.4 %. In 2 % the values were identical to those of PTS. The deviations observed were significant at up to +2.9° (± 1.7°) and -2.3° (± 1.5°) respectively in comparison with the measured PTS (p < 0.001). 25.9 % of the results showed a slope value more than 2°too high and 17.6 % one less than -2° too low. Thus, in 43 % of the results clinically relevant results that were too high or too low were observed for the tibial slope compared with the PTS (p < 0.001). The correlation analyses showed very high linear connections with PTS (p < 0.001) for all methods, from r
conclusionDepending on the measurement method, the slope values obtained should be individually evaluated, in order to draw the correct clinical conclusions. In principle, the radiological assessment of the whole lower leg is essential, so that concomitant pathologies in the area of the entire tibia can be detected. In everyday clinical practice, the measurement according to Han et al., and thus a shorter X‑ray projection, makes it possible to draw optimal conclusions about the PTS. LOE: Prospective diagnostic study, Level II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38884651What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.