Fibula–Tibia Distance and Revision for Instability After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Exploratory Case–Control Study Addressing Rotational Confounding
4 affiliations
- 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rabin Medical Center, Hasharon Hospital, Petah Tikva 4937211, Israel
- 2Department of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel
- 3Department of Information Systems, The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Emek Yezreel 1930600, Israel
- 4Management Department, Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Clalit Health Services, Petah Tikva 4937211, Israel
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Instability without component loosening is a leading indication for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), yet no preoperative radiographic marker of this outcome has been validated. We examined whether preoperative fibula–tibia geometry on standing anteroposterior (AP) radiographs differs between patients subsequently revised for instability and non-revised controls, and whether any difference could be explained by radiographic rotation. Methods: In this exploratory retrospective case–control study, preoperative standing AP radiographs of 22 patients revised for instability without loosening (2014–2024) were compared with 29 primary-TKA controls frequency-matched on age, sex and comorbidity, analyzing the index (operated) knee in both groups. Three blinded orthopedic residents annotated 17 tibiofibular landmarks; 135 pairwise inter-landmark distances normalized to fibular head width were screened, and the distance with the best combined reliability–discrimination rank was carried forward with bootstrap optimism correction and nested repeated cross-validation. Four complementary rotation sensitivity analyses compared two rotation proxies between groups, adjusted the distance for them, decomposed it into vertical and horizontal components with an in silico rotation model, and assessed bilateral agreement. Results: The fibula lateral shaft–tibia lateral meta-diaphysis distance was shorter in revised patients (0.76 ± 0.16 vs. 0.93 ± 0.17 fibular-head-width units; p = 0.0006; area under the curve (AUC) 0.78 [95% CI 0.65–0.90], optimism-corrected 0.72, cross-validated 0.66; inter-rater ICC(A,1) 0.80). No statistically significant difference in either rotation proxy was detected, and the association persisted after adjustment for both proxies and side (odds ratio 4.00 per standard deviation, 95% CI 1.59–10.03). The difference resided mainly in the vertical component, which is less sensitive to simulated axial rotation under the model assumptions, and simulated rotation of 0–30° did not reproduce it. The bilateral agreement was moderate (r = 0.55), but the subsequently revised knee measured shorter than the contralateral knee. Conclusions: In this exploratory cohort a shorter fibula–tibia distance was associated with subsequent revision for instability, and the association persisted across the rotation sensitivity analyses performed. The distance is a hypothesis-generating candidate marker; it does not establish the risk of instability in unselected patients, and prospective, three-dimensional validation is required before any clinical use.
Related
- The “Minimizing Excessive Rotational Instability Technique” (MERI Technique): A Simple Lateral Tenodesis Reconstructing the Condylar Strap, the Distal Kaplan Fibers, and the Femoral Insertion of the Anterolateral Ligament to Control Internal Rotation During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery
- CT-Based Assessment of Femoral Stem Anteversion After Intentional Intraoperative Rotational Adjustment of a Single-Wedge Tapered Stem in Total Hip Arthroplasty
- Post-Total Knee Arthroplasty Patellar Instability due to Extensor Mechanism Malalignment: A Novel Technique for Management.
- Efficacy of tactile stimulation via vibratory ankle supports and insoles on proprioception and balance in functional ankle instability: an exploratory four-armed randomized trial
- Young Aggressive Prostate Tumors Exhibit Increased Genomic Instability and an Exploratory RNA–CNA-Concordant Transcriptomic Pattern
BibTeX
@article{murad2026fibulatibia,
title = {{Fibula–Tibia Distance and Revision for Instability After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Exploratory Case–Control Study Addressing Rotational Confounding}},
author = {Hamza Murad and Aia Bowirrat and Muhammad Khatib and Feras Qawasmi and Dror Robinson and Loai Abdallah and Mohammad Shehadeh and Hazem Safadi and Eitan Lavon and Mustafa Yassin and Assil Mahamid},
journal = {Journal of clinical medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15197658},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13666231},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Fibula–Tibia Distance and Revision for Instability After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Exploratory Case–Control Study Addressing Rotational Confounding
AU - Hamza Murad
AU - Aia Bowirrat
AU - Muhammad Khatib
AU - Feras Qawasmi
AU - Dror Robinson
AU - Loai Abdallah
AU - Mohammad Shehadeh
AU - Hazem Safadi
AU - Eitan Lavon
AU - Mustafa Yassin
AU - Assil Mahamid
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of clinical medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15197658
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13666231
AB - Background/Objectives: Instability without component loosening is a leading indication for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), yet no preoperative radiographic marker of this outcome has been validated. We examined whether preoperative fibula–tibia geometry on standing anteroposterior (AP) radiographs differs between patients subsequently revised for instability and non-revised controls, and whether any difference could be explained by radiographic rotation. Methods: In this exploratory retrospective case–control study, preoperative standing AP radiographs of 22 patients revised for instability without loosening (2014–2024) were compared with 29 primary-TKA controls frequency-matched on age, sex and comorbidity, analyzing the index (operated) knee in both groups. Three blinded orthopedic residents annotated 17 tibiofibular landmarks; 135 pairwise inter-landmark distances normalized to fibular head width were screened, and the distance with the best combined reliability–discrimination rank was carried forward with bootstrap optimism correction and nested repeated cross-validation. Four complementary rotation sensitivity analyses compared two rotation proxies between groups, adjusted the distance for them, decomposed it into vertical and horizontal components with an in silico rotation model, and assessed bilateral agreement. Results: The fibula lateral shaft–tibia lateral meta-diaphysis distance was shorter in revised patients (0.76 ± 0.16 vs. 0.93 ± 0.17 fibular-head-width units; p = 0.0006; area under the curve (AUC) 0.78 [95% CI 0.65–0.90], optimism-corrected 0.72, cross-validated 0.66; inter-rater ICC(A,1) 0.80). No statistically significant difference in either rotation proxy was detected, and the association persisted after adjustment for both proxies and side (odds ratio 4.00 per standard deviation, 95% CI 1.59–10.03). The difference resided mainly in the vertical component, which is less sensitive to simulated axial rotation under the model assumptions, and simulated rotation of 0–30° did not reproduce it. The bilateral agreement was moderate (r = 0.55), but the subsequently revised knee measured shorter than the contralateral knee. Conclusions: In this exploratory cohort a shorter fibula–tibia distance was associated with subsequent revision for instability, and the association persisted across the rotation sensitivity analyses performed. The distance is a hypothesis-generating candidate marker; it does not establish the risk of instability in unselected patients, and prospective, three-dimensional validation is required before any clinical use.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -