Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39555850›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

Adapting the Dejour classification of trochlear dysplasia from qualitative radiograph- and CT-based assessments to quantitative MRI-based measurements.

David H Dejour, Edoardo Giovanetti de Sanctis, Jacobus H Müller, Etienne Deroche, Tomas Pineda, Amedeo Guarino, Cécile Toanen, Patellofemoral Imaging Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Patellar instability: current approach.EFORT open reviews · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

David H DejourLyon-Ortho-Clinic, Clinique de la Sauvegarde, Ramsay Santé, Lyon, France.
Edoardo Giovanetti de SanctisLyon-Ortho-Clinic, Clinique de la Sauvegarde, Ramsay Santé, Lyon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6012-1651
Jacobus H MüllerReSurg SA, Nyon, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0855-3852
Etienne DerocheCentre Orthopédique de Dracy-Le-Fort, Dracy-Le-Fort, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6587-7987
Tomas PinedaLyon-Ortho-Clinic, Clinique de la Sauvegarde, Ramsay Santé, Lyon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9537-0658
Amedeo GuarinoLyon-Ortho-Clinic, Clinique de la Sauvegarde, Ramsay Santé, Lyon, France.
Cécile ToanenDépartement de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Polyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Bordeaux, France.
Patellofemoral Imaging Group

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo adapt the current D. Dejour trochlear dysplasia classification (v2.0) to only rely on quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements (v3.0) to maximize objectivity and repeatability.

methodsA consecutive series of adult knee MRIs were divided into objective patellar instability (OPI, n = 127) or controls (n = 103; isolated meniscal tears) and postprocessed with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) to standardize the sagittal plane and ensure true lateral views. Thresholds for sulcus angle, lateral trochlear inclination (LTI) and central bump were established using regression tree models to distinguish OPI from controls. The sensitivity and specificity of sulcus angle and LTI combinations to diagnose OPI were then evaluated, and the combination yielding the highest sensitivity was selected as basis for trochlear dysplasia classification. Finally, sulcus angle and LTI measurability and presence of a central bump >5 mm were used to grade dysplasia as low, moderate or high.

resultsThe regression tree models produced thresholds of ≥157° for sulcus angle and <14° for LTI to distinguish OPI from controls. 'Sulcus angle ≥157° OR LTI < 14°' yielded the highest sensitivity (87%) to diagnose OPI. The quantitative MRI classification was sulcus angle <157° AND LTI ≥ 14° for Type 0 (No dysplasia); (sulcus angle ≥ 157° OR LTI < 14°) AND central bump <5 mm for Type 1 (Low-grade dysplasia); (sulcus angle OR LTI are 'unmeasurable') AND central bump <5 mm for Type 2 (Moderate-grade dysplasia); (sulcus angle ≥ 157° OR 'unmeasurable' OR LTI < 14° OR 'unmeasurable') AND central bump ≥5 mm for Type 3 (High-grade dysplasia).

conclusionThis MRI classification depends exclusively on quantitative measurements, has excellent interobserver agreement, and yields high sensitivity to diagnose OPI. The MRI imaging protocol with MPR mode and standardized measurements could be quickly adopted and correctly applied by clinicians worldwide in any type of institution to determine the ideal treatment plan. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

Joint InstabilityMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdolescentAdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung Adultbumplateral trochlear inclinationmagnetic resonance imagingobjective patellar instabilitysulcus angletrochlear dysplasia

Identifiers

PMID39555850
PMCPMC12310096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.