Table 3 Values of the posterior condylar offset and the posterior condylar offset ratio of the femur in the literature
Authors | Population | Method | Sample size | OL | OM | RL | RM | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wang et al. [19] | Chinese | CT | 100 | 27.3 ± 2.3 | 27.3 ± 2.3 | 0.5 ± 0.03 | 0.5 ± 0.03 | M |
(50 M, 50 F) | 25.8 ± 2.7 | 25.8 ± 2.7 | 0.5 ± 0.04 | 0.5 ± 0.04 | F | |||
|  | 26.6 ± 2.5 | 26.6 ± 2.5 | 0.5 ± 0.03 | 0.5 ± 0.03 | C | |||
Koh et al. [18] | Korean | MRI | 975 | 24.8 ± 2.4 | 26.8 ± 2.3 | 0.4 ± 0.06 | 0.4 ± 0.07 | M |
(150 M, 825 F) | 24.2 ± 2.2 | 26.2 ± 2.2 | 0.5 ± 0.04 | 0.5 ± 0.04 | F | |||
|  | 24.3 ± 2.3 | 26.3 ± 2.2 | 0. 5 ± 0.05 | 0.5 ± 0.05 | C | |||
Voleti et al. [39] | 49 Caucasian, | MRI | 100 | 27.0 ± 2.0 | 30.0 ± 2.5 | 0.4 ± 0.05 | 0.5 ± 0.04 | M |
27 African American, | (50 M, 50 F) | 25.0 ± 2.0 | 28.0 ± 2.7 | 0.4 ± 0.03 | 0.5 ± 0.05 | F | ||
16 Asian, 8 Hispanic |  | 26.0 ± 2.2 | 29.0 ± 2.8 | 0.4 ± 0.04 | 0.5 ± 0.05 | C | ||
Weinberg et al. [8]* | 366 Caucasian | Cadaveric | 529 (461 M, | 31.6 ± 3.5 | 32.9 ± 4.1 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.2 | M |
163 African American | 61 F) cadaver, | 30.2 ± 3.1 | 32.7 ± 4.4 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | F | ||
|  | 1058 femora | 31.2 ± 4.1 | 32.6 ± 3.8 | 1.1 ± 0.2# | 1.2 ± 0.2# | C | ||
Johal et al. [35] | Western (84.0% white, | X-rays | 100 | 29.0 ± 2.0 | 29.0 ± 2.0 | 0.4 ± 0.02 | 0.4 ± 0.02 | M |
6.0% black, 5.5% Asian, 3.6% mixed | (50 M, 50 F) | 27.2 ± 2.2 | 27.2 ± 2.2 | 0. 5 ± 0.02 | 0.5 ± 0.02 | F | ||
race, 3.0% Arabic 0.3%, 0.6% other) |  | 28.1 ± 2.3 | 28.1 ± 2.3 | 0.4 ± 0.02 | 0.4 ± 0.02 | C | ||
Our study | Egyptian | MRI | 200 | 24.6 ± 1.9 | 27.3 ± 2.5 | 0.4 ± 0.04 | 0.4 ± 0.04 | M |
(100 M,100 F) | 22.5 ± 2.3 | 24.3 ± 2.6 | 0.4 ± 0.04 | 0.5 ± 0.05 | F | |||
|  | 23.5 ± 2.4 | 25.8 ± 2.9 | 0.4 ± 0.04 | 0.5 ± 0.04 | C |