View Full Version : J. of Orthopaedic Research 8(3)

Herman J. Woltring
05-09-1990, 04:01 AM
Dear Biomch-L readers,

The last issue of the Journal of Orthopaedic Research (vol. 8, nr. 3, 1990)
contains a number of interesting articles:

William G. Negendank, Felix R. Fernandez-Madrid, Lance K. Heilbrun, and
Robert A. Teige, Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Meniscal Degeneration in
Asymptomatic Knees (pp. 311 - 320)

A. van Kampen and R. Huiskes, The Three-Dimensional Tracking Pattern of
the Human Patella (pp. 372 - 382)

M.P. Kadaba, H.K. Ramakrishnan and M.E. Wootten, Measurement of Lower
Extremity Kinematics During Level Walking (pp. 383 - 392)

In the context of the recent debate on joint angles, the latter two papers seem
to implement two different joint angle conventions: Albert van Kampen en Rik
Huiskes (Nijmegen/NL) implement the Selvik convention (flexion/extension imbed-
ded proximally, endo/exorotation floating, and ab/adduction imbedded distally),
while Murali Kadaba and his colleagues (West Haverstraw, NY/USA) have adopted
the Grood & Suntay definition with proximally imbedded flexion/extension axis,
floating ab/adduction axis, and distally imbedded endo/exorotation axis. They
call the corresponding joint angles even `orthopaedic angles'...

As Leendert Blankevoort (Nijmegen/NL) claimed in a recent paper in the Journal
of Biomechanics, the difference between these conventions is not very large.
However, flexion in his study did not go beyond about 90 degrees, if I recall
correctly, while knee flexions up to 150 degrees are reported in the present
Nijmegen study. It would be interesting to see how different the various curves
look under the two conventions.

In recent research with Sandro Fioretti in Ancona/Italy, we found that the heli-
cal angles and the Grood & Suntay angles are rather different for ab/adduction
and endo/exorotation, but quite similar for flexion/extension during regular
level walking, if the neutral attitudes are defined with the subject in the
standard, anatomical position. In fact, flexion/extension was similar for all
possible, Cardanic permutations, while the two other angles could be quite dif-
ferent. In one case where flexion/extension was the floating angle, the two
other angles were very large, presumably, because of a positive correlation
between the terminal angles when the floating angle is not small.

I'd like to pose the following question to the readership: it seems that there
are different interpretations of the terms `sagittal, frontal, and transverse
axes'. While Kapandji defines the sagittal and frontal axes to be horizontal
within the planes of the same names (again, for the subject in the standard,
anatomical position), others view these axes as normal to these planes. I would
be grateful for any comments and pointers to literature defining these alterna-

Herman J. Woltring, Eindhoven/NL