Total Knee Replacement Sizing: Shoe Size Is a Better Predictor for Implant Size than Body Height

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston, MA, USA

Abstract

Background: Various sizes of implants need to be available during surgery. The purpose of this paper is to compare
body height and shoe size with implant sizes in patients who underwent total knee replacement surgery to see which
biomarker is a better predictor for preoperative planning to determine implant size.
Methods: A total of 100 knees, belonging to 50 females and 50 males, were observed. Participants’ body height and
shoe size were collected and correlated to implant sizes of a current, frequently used, standard total knee replacement
(TKR) implant. The femoral anteroposterior and mediolateral width and the tibial anteroposterior and mediolateral width
were correlated with height and shoe size.
Results: The correlation between shoe size and the four knee implant dimensions, femoral AP, ML, and tibial AP and
ML were higher than the correlations between height and the same four dimensions.
Conclusion: The results indicated that shoe size is a better predictor of component dimensions than is body height.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Mahoney OM, Kinsey T. Overhang of the femoral
component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and
clinical consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;
92(5):1115-21.
2. Iorio R, Siegel J, Specht LM, Tilzey FJ, Hartman A, Healy
WL. A comparison of acetate vs digital templating for
preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty: is
digital templating accurate and safe? J Arthroplasty.2009; 24(2):175-9.
3. Hernandez-Vaquero D, Abat F, Sarasquete J, Monllau
JC. Reliability of preoperative measurement with
standardized templating in Total Knee Arthroplasty.
World J Orthop. 2013; 4(4):287-90.
4. Miller AG, Purtill JJ. Accuracy of digital templating
in total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2012;
41(11):510-2.
5. Miller AG, Purtill JJ. Total knee arthroplasty component
templating: a predictive model. J Arthroplasty. 2012;
27(9):1707-9.
6. Levine B, Fabi D, Deirmengian C. Digital templating in
primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics.
2010; 33(11):797.
7. Sawalha S, Pasapula C, Coleman N. An alternative
method for predicting size of femoral component
of Oxford partial knee replacement. Surgeon. 2012;
10(5):257-9.
8. Williams EJ. The comparison of regression variables. J
R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1959; 21(2):396-9.
9. Weaver B, Wuensch K. SPSS and SAS programs for
comparing Pearson correlations and OLS regression
coefficients. Behav Res Methods. 2013; 45(3):880-95.
10. Hitt K, Shurman JR 2nd, Greene K, McCarthy J, Moskal
J, Hoeman T, Mont MA. Anthropometric measurements
of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current
knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;
85(4):115-22.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 6, Issue 2
March 2018
Pages 100-104

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 06 April 2017
  • Revise Date: 01 August 2017
  • Accept Date: 05 August 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics