advertising
-
1.
Steen H, Terjesen T, Bjerkreim I: Anisomelia. Clinical consequences and treatment. Article in Norwegian. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 117: 1595, 1997.
-
2.
Azizan NA, Basaruddin KS, Salleh AF: The effects of leg length discrepancy on stability and kinematics-kinetics deviations: a systematic review. Appl Bionics Biomech 2018: 5156348, 2018.
-
3.
Applebaum A, Nessim A, Cho W: Overview and spinal implications of leg length discrepancy: narrative review. Clin Orthop Surg 13: 127, 2021.
-
4.
Rondon CA, González N, Agreda L, et al: Observer agreement in the measurement of leg length. Article in Spanish. Rev Invest Clin 44: 85, 1992.
-
5.
Beattie P, Isaacson K, Riddle DL, et al: Validity of derived measurements of leg-length differences obtained by use of a tape measure. Phys Ther 70: 150, 1990.
-
6.
Farahmand B, Ebrahimi Takamjani E, Yazdi HR, et al: A systematic review on the validity and reliability of tape measurement method in leg length discrepancy. Med J Islam Repub Iran 33: 46, 2019.
-
7.
Green WT, Wyatt GM, Anderson M: Orthoroentgenography as a method of measuring the bones of the lower extremities. J Bone Joint Surg Am 28: 60, 1946.
-
8.
Horsfield D, Jones SN: Assessment of inequality in length of the lower limb. Radiography 52: 223, 1986.
-
9.
Konermann W, Gruber G: Ultrasound determination of leg length. Article in German. Orthopade 31: 300, 2002.
-
10.
Krettek C, Koch T, Henzler D, et al: A new procedure for determining leg length and leg length inequality using ultrasound. II: comparison of ultrasound, teleradiography and 2 clinical procedures in 50 patients. Article in German. Unfallchirurg 99: 43, 1996.
-
11.
Leitzes AH, Potter HG, Amaral T, et al: Reliability and accuracy of MRI scanogram in the evaluation of limb length discrepancy. J Pediatr Orthop 25: 747, 2005.
-
12.
Sabharwal S, Zhao C, McKeon JJ, et al: Computed radiographic measurement of limb-length discrepancy. Full-length standing anteroposterior radiograph compared with scanogram. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88: 2243, 2006.
-
13.
Westermann RW, Schick C, Graves CM, et al: What does a shoulder MRI cost the consumer? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475: 580, 2017.
-
14.
Saini S, Sharma R, Levine LA, et al: Technical cost of CT examinations. Radiology 218: 172, 2001.
-
15.
Knutson GA: Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance. Chiropr Osteopat 13: 11, 2005.
-
16.
Sabharwal S, Kumar A: Methods for assessing leg length discrepancy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466: 2910, 2008.
-
17.
Gurney B: Leg length discrepancy. Gait Posture 15: 195, 2002.
-
18.
Bedoya MA, Chauvin NA, Jaramillo D, et al: Common patterns of congenital lower extremity shortening: diagnosis, classification, and follow-up. Radiographics 35: 1191, 2015.
Computed Tomography Scanographic Analysis of Symptomatic Limb Length Discrepancy
Department of Vascular Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY.
Search for other papers by Alex Fleischman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
St. Luke’s University Health Network, Bethlehem, PA.
Search for other papers by Michael An in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Vascular Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY.
Search for other papers by Wendy Young in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Limb length discrepancy (LLD) is diagnosed when one limb is noted to be longer than the other. Symptomatic LLD is defined as the appearance of symptoms secondary to the compensatory mechanisms of LLD with a measured limb length differential. Several studies have been conducted analyzing LLD through plain radiographs, yet there are only a few studies analyzing LLD using computed tomography (CT) scanography.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective baseline study of patients between December 2007 and December 2017 in order to reinforce the side dominance and associated measurements of lower-extremity limb lengths through CT scanograms. The average femoral, tibial, and total limb length was calculated for each extremity. Paired sample t tests were conducted between each osseous component and total limb length.
Results: Following institutional review board review and exemption, 400 charts that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. The left limb was significantly longer than the right limb by approximately 0.10 cm (P < .05). The left femur was significantly longer than the right femur by approximately 0.07 cm (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the tibial length (P > .05).
Conclusions: There was a significant limb length differential in which the left limb was longer than the right limb secondary to increased femoral length. Although our results may seem imperative to our understanding of LLD, it is important to state that all of our differentials were similar, with large SDs, indicating low power of the study. Future research with an increased number of participants is warranted to reinforce the findings.
This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Northport VA Medical Center, Northport, New York. The contents do not represent the views of the VA or the United States Government.
advertising
