Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025
Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration
Published on: November 23, 2019
Differences in Patellofemoral Alignment Between Static and Dynamic Extension Positions in Patients With
Yurou Chen1, Jia Li1,2, Haitao Yang1
1Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, PR China.
Background:
Considering that patellofemoral pain (PFP) is related to dynamic factors, dynamic extension on 4-dimensional computed tomography (4-DCT) may better reflect the influence of muscles and surrounding soft tissue than static extension.
Purpose:
To compare the characteristics of patellofemoral alignment between the static and dynamic knee extension position in patients with PFP and controls via 4-DCT.
Study Design:
Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
Included were 39 knees (25 patients) with PFP and 37 control knees (24 participants). For each knee, an image of the dynamic extension position (a single frame of the knee in full extension [flexion angle of -5° to 0°] selected from 21 frames of continuous images acquired by 4-DCT during active flexion and extension) and an image of the static extension position (acquired using the same equipment with the knee fully extended and the muscles relaxed) were selected. Patellofemoral alignment was evaluated between the dynamic and static extension positions and between the PFP and control groups with the following parameters: patella-patellar tendon angle (P-PTA), Blackburne-Peel ratio, bisect-offset (BO) index, lateral patellar tilt (LPT), and tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance.
Results:
In both PFP patients and controls, the P-PTA, Blackburne-Peel ratio, and BO index in the static extension position were significantly lower (P < .001 for all), while the LPT and TT-TG distance in the static extension position were significantly higher (P ≤ .034 and P < .001, respectively) compared with values in the dynamic extension position. In the comparison between groups, only P-PTA in the static extension position was significantly different (134.97° ± 4.51° [PFP] vs 137.82° ± 5.63° [control]; P = .027). No difference was found in the rate of change from the static to the dynamic extension position of any parameter between the study groups.
Conclusion:
The study results revealed significant differences in patellofemoral alignment characteristics between the static and dynamic extension positions of PFP patients and controls. Multiplanar measurements may have a role in subsequent patellofemoral alignment evaluation.
