Coronal malalignment of lower legs depending on the locations of the exostoses in patients with multiple hereditary exostoses.
Ankle valgus
Location of exostosis
Multiple hereditary exostoses
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Nov 2019
25 Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
23
02
2019
accepted:
24
10
2019
entrez:
27
11
2019
pubmed:
27
11
2019
medline:
10
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Though malalignment of lower legs is a common pathologic phenomenon in multiple hereditary exostoses (MHE), relationship between locations of exostoses and malalignment of lower legs remains unclear. This study examined radiographs of MHE patients in an attempt to evaluate the tendency of coronal malalignment of lower legs with different location of exostoses on lower legs consisting of two parallel long bones. Between 2000 and 2017, we retrospectively reviewed the anteroposterior films of the teleo-roentgenographics of 63 patients with MHE. The patients were classified into four different groups depending on the locations of the exostosis, which occurred on both proximal and distal tibiofibular joints (A), proximal tibiofibular joint (B), distal tibiofibular joint (C), and not for the tibiofibular joint area (D). To evaluate the influence of the location of exostoses on coronal malalignment of lower legs, medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA), lateral distal tibia angle (LDTA), and fibular shortening were analyzed for each group. Significant difference was observed in multiple comparative analyses for each of the four groups. On MPTA radiologic analysis, group A showed greatest value with significant difference compared with groups C and D (vs. (B): p = 0.215; vs. distal joints (C): p = 0.004; vs. (D): p = 0.001). Group B showed significant difference only with group D (vs. distal joints (C): p = 0.388; vs. (D): p = 0.002), but for group C and D showed no significant difference. For LDTA, only group A showed significant difference compared to other groups (p < 0.001). With regard to tibiofibular ratio for evaluation of fibular shortening, group A showed the lowest ratio (vs. (B): p = 0.004; vs. (C): p = 0.655; vs. (D): p < 0.001). Group C also presented the significant lower ratio than group D (p = 0.002). For evaluation of the coronal malalignment of lower legs in MHE patients, not only ankle around the distal tibiofibular joint but also proximal tibiofibular joint should be examined, in that, lower limb deformity occurred by two parallel long bone which has self-contained joint. Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUNDS
BACKGROUND
Though malalignment of lower legs is a common pathologic phenomenon in multiple hereditary exostoses (MHE), relationship between locations of exostoses and malalignment of lower legs remains unclear. This study examined radiographs of MHE patients in an attempt to evaluate the tendency of coronal malalignment of lower legs with different location of exostoses on lower legs consisting of two parallel long bones.
METHODS
METHODS
Between 2000 and 2017, we retrospectively reviewed the anteroposterior films of the teleo-roentgenographics of 63 patients with MHE. The patients were classified into four different groups depending on the locations of the exostosis, which occurred on both proximal and distal tibiofibular joints (A), proximal tibiofibular joint (B), distal tibiofibular joint (C), and not for the tibiofibular joint area (D). To evaluate the influence of the location of exostoses on coronal malalignment of lower legs, medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA), lateral distal tibia angle (LDTA), and fibular shortening were analyzed for each group.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Significant difference was observed in multiple comparative analyses for each of the four groups. On MPTA radiologic analysis, group A showed greatest value with significant difference compared with groups C and D (vs. (B): p = 0.215; vs. distal joints (C): p = 0.004; vs. (D): p = 0.001). Group B showed significant difference only with group D (vs. distal joints (C): p = 0.388; vs. (D): p = 0.002), but for group C and D showed no significant difference. For LDTA, only group A showed significant difference compared to other groups (p < 0.001). With regard to tibiofibular ratio for evaluation of fibular shortening, group A showed the lowest ratio (vs. (B): p = 0.004; vs. (C): p = 0.655; vs. (D): p < 0.001). Group C also presented the significant lower ratio than group D (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
For evaluation of the coronal malalignment of lower legs in MHE patients, not only ankle around the distal tibiofibular joint but also proximal tibiofibular joint should be examined, in that, lower limb deformity occurred by two parallel long bone which has self-contained joint.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31766997
doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2912-6
pii: 10.1186/s12891-019-2912-6
pmc: PMC6878674
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
564Références
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Sep;86(7):1041-6
pubmed: 15446535
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994 Jul;76(7):986-92
pubmed: 8027127
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1961 Nov;43-B:700-16
pubmed: 14039414
Hum Genet. 1997 May;99(5):612-5
pubmed: 9150727
Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Feb;62(2):346-54
pubmed: 9463333
J Pediatr Orthop. 1989 Jul-Aug;9(4):427-32
pubmed: 2732323
Hum Mutat. 1998;11(3):231-9
pubmed: 9521425
J Pediatr Orthop. 2008 Oct-Nov;28(7):761-5
pubmed: 18812904
J Pediatr Orthop. 2002 Jan-Feb;22(1):120-4
pubmed: 11744867
Foot Ankle. 1980 Nov;1(3):128-42
pubmed: 6976296
Am J Hum Genet. 1997 Sep;61(3):520-8
pubmed: 9326317
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1963 Jan;45-A:1-14
pubmed: 14040773
J Pediatr Orthop. 1985 Mar-Apr;5(2):176-80
pubmed: 3872882
J Pediatr Orthop. 2015 Jan;35(1):94-9
pubmed: 24978121
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1984 May;66(3):381-5
pubmed: 6373777
Foot Ankle Int. 2013 Sep;34(9):1267-73
pubmed: 23598856
J Pediatr Orthop. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):549-55
pubmed: 11433174
J Pediatr Orthop. 1995 Sep-Oct;15(5):585-91
pubmed: 7593567