Sir,
This paper made interesting reading. I have the following observations:
1. The suggested explanation for an increased Q angle in females is
the increased femoro-tibial angle (Genu valgum) rather than a wide pelvis.
Though the female pelvis is accepted as wider, this usually refers to the
pelvic cavity. The distance between the two anterior iliac spines
(interspinous distance) is comparable in males and females. Therefore any
difference in Q angle between males and females is less likely to be due to a
lateralisation of the anterior superior iliac spine. The authors have not
addressed the relationship of the patella to the tibial tuberosity, which
is a more important determinant of the Q angle. The fact that females have
a larger physiological genu valgum (due to their wider pelvises) is well
documented. If males and females have identical Q angles, there should be
some compensatory measurement to negate the higher genu valgum values in
females. Perhaps incorporating femoro-tibial values in the study would
have helped.
2. Converting triangle ABC (in Figure 1) into a right-angled triangle
gives an incorrect estimation of the Q angle since it assumes that the
patella and the tibial tuberosity are in a straight line. In most knees
the tibial tuberosity is more laterally placed, thereby adding on to the Q
angle.
3. While measuring the Q angle it is best that the knee is extended
(zero position), as flexion tends to alter any angulation at the knee
(valgum or varum).
J. MENON, Associate Professor of Orthopaedics,
Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research,
Pondicherry
India.