Accuracy in Determining Canal Flare Index Using Different Radiographical Positions for Imaging Canine Femurs

Andrade, Caroline Ribeiro de; Minto, Bruno Watanabe; Dreibi, Rafael Manzini; Diogo, Lúcia Maria Izique; Kawamoto, Fernando Yoiti Kitamura; Franco, Guilherme Galhardo; Uscategui, R.A.R.; Dias, Luis Gustavo Gosuen Gonçalves

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1683390

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These methods differed with respect to the measurement of the femoral fraction regarding the mathematical formula used to calculate the CFI and were similar to that reported by ANDRADE et al (2019), who obtained values that differed from those found by PALIERNE et al (2006) because they used different anatomical references to calculate the CFI. When establishing the measurement of the medullary canal at the height of the midpoint of the femoral length, it was not always similar to the femoral isthmus, presenting a higher value compared to that obtained when performing the subjective measurement, that is, the region with the lowest canal width diaphyseal femoral medulla.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 71%

Canal flare index evaluation for different dog breeds

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study determined the canal flare index (CFI) of four dog breeds using two distinct femoral regions as a reference. Thirty-five radiographs of the hip joints of Golden Retrievers (GRG), German Shepherds (GSG), Labrador Retrievers (LRG), and Rottweilers (RG) of both sexes were used. Seventy experimental units were submitted to CFI calculation. Objective (CFIob) and subjective (CFIsub) values of the CFI of each experimental unit were determined according to the anatomical reference used for the calculation. A significant difference in the CFIob between the Golden Retriever and German Shepherd breeds (1.68 ± 0.16 and 1.49 ± 0.08), and in the CFIsub between Golden Retriever, German Shepherd, and Rottweiler breeds (2.09 ± 0.31, 1.86 ± 0.11, and 1.84 ± 0.18) was reported. The subjective form of measurement showed higher values than the objective form (GRG: 2.09 ± 0.31; GSG: 1.86 ± 0.11; LRG: 2.07 ± 0.12; RG: 1.84 ± 0.18). The CFI values of each breed were similar, suggesting a certain racial pattern. A significant difference in the interobserver assessment for both CFIsub and CFIob, in all races was observed. The CFI analysis identified morphological patterns of the proximal femur in the different races. Results indicated the need for standardization of the anatomical references used to calculate the CFI because there were statistical differences among the measurements among the observers.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 71%

Canal flare index evaluation for different dog breeds

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8,10,11 Andrade and colleagues calculated a lower CFI than the mean CFI of Palierne's studies. [19][20][21] And the variability in the body weights of dogs and the levels of endosteal width measurements was discussed. Andrade and colleagues 19 used the endosteal width at the medial aspect, while Palierne and colleagues 20,21 used the endosteal width at the proximal aspect of the lesser trochanter to calculate CFI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 The CFI LT-I was calculated as the ratio between the endosteal width at the medial aspect of the lesser trochanter and at the isthmus. 5,[16][17][18][19] The CFI PLT-I was calculated as the ratio between the endosteal width at the proximal aspect of the lesser trochanter and at the isthmus. [20][21][22] The same investigator (FSK) completed all of the measurements in an attempt to eliminate any possibility of interobserver variability.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 The limits of agreement between the CFI values calculated by the CFI LT-M , the CFI LT-I and the CFI PLT-I were also evaluated by the Bland-Altman method. 19,24…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the veterinary literature, although they used the same ranges in the classification, the canine CFI was calculated from the ratio between the endosteal widths at the medial aspect of the lesser trochanter and at the isthmus. 5,[16][17][18][19] The ratio between the endosteal width at the proximal aspect of the lesser trochanter and at the isthmus has been also used to calculate the canine CFI of femur. [20][21][22] The purpose of the study is to determine whether differences exist among the CFI values obtained by the different calculation methods in the veterinary literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Canal Flare Index in the Canine Femur Is Influenced by the Measurement Method

Sevil-Kilimci

Kara

2020

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We evaluated whether differences exist among the canal flare index (CFI) values obtained by different calculation methods in the veterinary literature. Study Design The endosteal widths were measured from radiographic images of canine cadaveric femora. Three different formulae were used to calculate the CFI. The CFILT-M was the ratio of endosteal width at the medial aspect of the lesser trochanter (LT) to the midshaft (M), while the CFILT-I was the ratio of LT to the isthmus (I). The CFIPLT-I was the ratio of endosteal width at the proximal aspect of the lesser trochanter (PLT) and the I. The widths at each level and the CFI calculation methods were compared. Using Rashmir–Raven's method, the femora were typed as stovepipe, normal and champagne fluted. The limits of agreement were also evaluated. Results The endosteal width at the proximal aspect of the lesser trochanter was 12% wider than at the medial aspect and 8% wider at the midshaft than at the isthmus. The CFILT-M was less than CFILT-I and CFIPLT-I by 9 and 20%, respectively. By Rashmir–Raven's classification, the CFILT-M method provided 18% stovepipe, 79% normal and 3% champagne fluted femora. The CFILT-I method showed the stovepipe, the normal and the champagne fluted as 6, 82 and 12%, respectively. The CFIPLT-I method classified the femora either normal (55%) or champagne fluted (45%). The comparison of CFILT-M with the other methods using Bland–Altman analysis showed lower mean difference for the CFILT-I than the CFIPLT-I. Conclusion The level of width measurements at proximal femora might have an impact on the CFI values, likewise, preoperative planning procedures and the selection of a stem type in total hip arthroplasty.

show abstract

The Effect of the Method of Canal Flare Index Calculation on Femoral Classification in Dogs: An Ex Vivo Study

Galetti,

Andrade,

Minto

et al. 2024

VCOT Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare canal flare index (CFI) values obtained by different intracortical widths in the lesser trochanter and to evaluate their influence on femoral classification. Methods Femur radiographic images were analysed by three evaluators that calculated the CFI using three different points in the lesser trochanter: proximal, midpoint, and distal. Results There was no interobserver influence, but there was a difference in the CFI value and femoral classification according to the calculation method. The proximal region presents higher CFI values and only 4% of ‘Stovepipe’ femurs, while the distal region presents lower CFI values and 46% of ‘Stovepipe’ femurs. Clinical Significance The variation in level of measurement can significantly alter femoral classification, which must be considered when the CFI is used in the surgical planning of total hip arthroplasty.

show abstract

Accuracy in Determining Canal Flare Index Using Different Radiographical Positions for Imaging Canine Femurs

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

Canal flare index evaluation for different dog breeds

Canal flare index evaluation for different dog breeds

Canal Flare Index in the Canine Femur Is Influenced by the Measurement Method

The Effect of the Method of Canal Flare Index Calculation on Femoral Classification in Dogs: An Ex Vivo Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About