Long leg radiographs underestimate the degree of constitutional varus limb alignment and joint line obliquity in comparison with computed tomography: a radiographic study

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to understand if differences exist between computed tomography (CT) and long leg radiographs (LLR) when defining coronal plane alignment of the lower limb in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It aimed to identify any such differences between the two imaging modalities by quantifying constitutional limb alignment (arithmetic hip–knee–ankle angle (aHKA), joint line obliquity (JLO) and Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) type within the same population. Methods A retrospective radiographic study compared pre‐operative LLR and CT measurements in patients undergoing robotic‐assisted TKA. The aHKA, JLO and CPAK types were calculated after measuring the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA). The primary outcomes were the mean differences in aHKA (MPTA−LDFA), JLO (MPTA + LDFA) and proportions of CPAK types between LLR and CT groups. The secondary outcomes were the differences in CT‐derived MPTA values based on four different tibial sagittal landmarks. Results After exclusions, 465 imaging sets were analysed in 394 patients. There was a statistically significant mean difference between LLR and CT, respectively, for both MPTA (87.5° vs. 86.2°; p < 0.01) and LDFA (88.7° vs. 87.3°; p < 0.01). There were also statistically significant differences for aHKA (− 0.2° vs. − 1.1°) and JLO (175.1° vs. 173.4°) for LLR and CT, respectively (both p < 0.01). CT increased the proportion of patients with CPAK Type I (constitutional varus aHKA, apex distal JLO) and CPAK Type II (neutral aHKA, apex distal JLO), and decreased numbers of CPAK Types III–VI. There were significant mean differences in the MPTA using varying sagittal landmarks. Conclusion Alignment determined by LLRs underestimates the magnitude of both constitutional varus alignment and joint line obliquity compared to CT, differences that notably increase the proportions of patients included in CPAK Types I and II. These distinctions are primarily due to underestimation of proximal tibial varus when measured on LLRs compared to CT, which more specifically defines articular weight‐bearing points. Level of evidence III.