Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Distributions of limb alignment by age, sex, and ethnicity

From: Mechanical contributors to sex differences in idiopathic knee osteoarthritis

Limb alignment measure Ethnicity Sex Age (years) Alignment Mean±SD Source Note/conclusion
Femur-tibia angle (FTA) (degrees, mean ± SD) Not specified men 21-40 (n=30) 2.3 ± 2.3 varus [5] No age or sex differences Mean FTA 1.2o ± 2.2o (varus)
41-60 (n=30) 1.0 ± 2.3 varus
women 21-40 (n=30) 1.3 ± 1.8 varus
41-60 (n=30) 0.3 ± 2.3 varus
FTA (degrees, mean ± SD) Chinese men mean age: 24 range: 22–31 (n=25) 2.2 ± 2.7 varus [15] No sex differences
women mean age: 23 range: 21–29 (n=25) 2.2 ± 2.5 varus
FTA (degrees, mean ± SD) Japanese and Australian Caucasian men 18-29 (n=21) 180.3 ± 3.0 varus [16] In combined group, women had more valgus alignment p = 0.017) Japanese (men and women) more varus than Australian Caucasians; No age effects
30-59 (n=36) 179.8 ± 2.5 valgus
>60 (n=23) 180.0 ± 2.1 neutral
women 18-29 (n=35) 179.5 ± 3.2, valgus
30-59 (n=36) 178.6 ± 2.5 valgus
>60 (n=23) 180.0 ± 2.1 neutral
Hip-knee-Ankle (HKA) (degrees, mean ± SD) Not specified/Canadian men <30 (n=38) >45 (n=14) −1.5 ± 3.0 varus [13] Women more likely than men in all age groups to have valgus alignment (p = 0.03) No age effects
women <30 (n=41) >45 (n=26) −0.5 ± 2.6 varus
HKA Japanese and Caucasian men Caucasian 28 ± 6.8 (n=23) 36% of men had valgus alignment [14] Japanese higher varus vs. Caucasians; Women more valgus than men
Japanese 30 ± 6.3 (n=11)
women Caucasian 26 ± 7.7 (n=24) 50% women had valgus alignment
Japanese 37 ± 6.2 (n=12)