Table 5. Summary of the morphometry of the proximal tibia reported by different authors for different ethnic populations.
CT: computed tomography; M: male; F: female: 3D: three-dimensional; tML: tibial mediolateral length; tAP: tibial anteroposterior length; tMAP: tibial medial anteroposterior length; tLAP: tibial lateral anteroposterior length; tR: tibial aspect ratio; mm: millimeters.
| Authors | Ethnicity | Sample size | Technique | tML (mm) | tAP (mm) | tMAP (mm) | tLAP (mm) | tR (%) | ||||||
| M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | |||
| Cheng et al. [7] | Chinese | 94 | 78 | CT 3D reconstruction | 76.4 ± 2.8 | 68.8 ± 4.6 | 51.3 ± 2.0 | 45.7 ± 1.9 | 53.3 ± 2.5 | 47.5 ± 2.4 | 47.7 ± 2.7 | 42.4 ± 2.3 | 149.0 ± 5.7 | 150.7 ± 6.1 |
| Kwak et al. [14] | Koreans | 50 | 50 | CT 3D reconstruction | 76.1 ± 4.0 | 67.6 ± 3.1 | 48.2 ± 3.3 | 43.2 ± 2.3 | 48.5 ± 3.7 | 43.5 ± 2.9 | 43.5 ± 2.9 | 39.8 ± 2.5 | 158 | 156 |
| Uehara et al. [9] | Japanese | 21 | 59 | CT imaging | 83.0 ± 6.2 | 71.7 ± 4.0 | 53.8 ± 6.6 | 46.6 ± 3.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Mensch et al. [18] | Caucasians (Americans) | 14 | 16 | Cadaveric study | 80.3 ± 3.7 | 46.6 ± 3.6 | - | - | 54.3 ± 3.6 | 46.0 ± 2.1 | 43.5 ± 2.8 | 38.3 ± 2.6 | - | - |
| Our study | Indian | 50 | 100 | CT imaging | 75.2 ± 3.6 | 66.1 ± 3.2 | 47.2 ± 3.0 | 42.1 ± 2.7 | 50.0 ± 3.1 | 43.9 ± 3.0 | 46.9 ± 2.6 | 40.9 ± 2.9 | 159.8 ± 10.0 | 157.2 ± 8.6 |