ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Comparison of tibial tubercle-Roman arch distance and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance in patients with patellar dislocation or subluxation.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) and tibial tubercle-Roman arch (TT-RA) distances in patients with patellar dislocation or subluxation, evaluate TT-RA reliability and reproducibility, and determine pathological threshold values for surgical treatment using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective analysis included 259 patient and 262 control examinations of knee MRIs and/or CTs performed. TT-RA, TT-TG, and tibial tubercle-posterior cruciate ligament (TT-PCL) distances, Roman Arch height, trochlear sulcus angle, and total femoral condyle width were measured by two radiologists, and trochlear morphology was assessed. Measurements were compared using the Student's t-test. Reliability and reproducibility were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis determined pathological thresholds, and Pearson correlation compared TT-TG and TT-RA.
resultsTT-RA, TT-TG, TT-PCL distances, and trochlear sulcus angles were significantly different between patient and control groups (p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses for MRI and CT also showed significant differences (p < 0.001). TT-RA distance had higher ICC values for reproducibility and reliability (> 0.959; > 0.988). ROC analysis determined MRI thresholds as TT-RA > 17.30 mm, TT-TG > 13.30 mm, TT-PCL > 23.8 mm, and trochlear sulcus angle > 146°; for CT, TT-RA > 18.80 mm, TT-TG > 15.60 mm, TT-PCL > 21.5 mm, and trochlear sulcus angle > 148°. Strong correlation was found between TT-TG and TT-RA distances (r = 0.867, p < 0.001).
conclusionTT-RA distance is a reliable and reproducible method for tibial tubercle localization and shows higher reliability than TT-TG. Thresholds of 17.3 mm (MRI) and 18.8 mm (CT) for TT-RA can guide surgical indications. KEY POINTS: Question The reliable measurement of the tibial tubercle lateralization is crucial for planning the treatment of patients with patellar dislocation/subluxation. Findings The tibial tubercle-Roman arch (TT-RA) distance is more reliable and repeatable than the tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance in patients with patellar dislocation and subluxation. Clinical relevance TT-RA distance can be used in clinical practice as an alternative to tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance for surgical treatment indications in patients with patellar subluxation and dislocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40911062What 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.