Morphological study of the proximal femur: a new method of geometrical assessment using 3-dimensional reverse engineering

Mahaisavariya, Banchong; Sitthiseripratip, Kriskrai; Tongdee, Trongtum; Bohez, Erik L. J.; Sloten, Jos Vander; Oris, P

doi:10.1016/s1350-4533(02)00113-3

Cited by 123 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Femoral torsion was calculated according to Murphy et al [17]. A least-squares spherical approximation to the points of the femoral head was used [16] to improve the accuracy of the determination of the femoral head center in LCPD hips. This method of a best-fitting sphere to determine the femoral head center in a nonspherical femoral head could be successfully used in a previous study [20].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

LCPD: Reduced Range of Motion Resulting From Extra- and Intraarticular Impingement

Tannast

Hanke

Ecker

et al. 2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD) often results in a deformity that can be considered as a complex form of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Improved preoperative characterization of the FAI problem based on a noninvasive three-dimensional computer analysis may help to plan the appropriate operative treatment. Questions/purposes We asked whether the location of impingement zones, the presence of additional extraarticular impingement, and the resulting ROM differ between hips with LCPD and normal hips or hips with FAI. Methods We used a CT-based virtual dynamic motion analysis based on a motion algorithm to simulate the individual motion for 13 hips with LCPD, 22 hips with FAI, and 27 normal hips. We then determined the motion and impingement pattern of each hip for the anterior (flexion, adduction, internal rotation) and the posterior impingement tests (extension, adduction, external rotation). Results The location of impingement zones in hips with LCPD differed compared with the FAI/normal groups. Intra-and extraarticular impingement was more frequent in LCPD (79% and 86%, respectively) compared with normal (15%, 15%) and FAI hips (36%, 14%). Hips with LCPD had decreased amplitude for all hip motions (flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, internal and external rotation) compared with FAI or normal. Conclusions Hips with LCPD show a decreased ROM as a result of a higher prevalence of intra-and extraarticular FAI. Noninvasive assessment of impingement characteristics in hips with LCPD may be helpful in the future for establishment of a surgical plan.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

LCPD: Reduced Range of Motion Resulting From Extra- and Intraarticular Impingement

Tannast

Hanke

Ecker

et al. 2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First and foremost is the difference of the anthropometry of the proximal femur between ethnics due to differences in lifestyle, physique, applied force and their distribution. This can be seen from numerous data presented in various studies for the western and eastern population (Hoaglund & Low, 1980;Gnudi et al, 2004;Calis et al, 2004;Igbigbi & Msamati, 2002;Mahaisavariya et al, 2002;De Sousa et al, 2010;Mishra et al, 2009;Caetano et al, 2007;Da Silva et al, 2003). Another issue is implant-morphology mismatch that might cause difficulties during implant placement and could lead to accelerated deterioration of the implant life thus affecting short-term and long-term outcome of the surgery (Reddy et al, 1999;Noble et al, 1988;Kaya et al, 2008;Fang et al, 2010;Ohsawa et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphology Study of the Proximal Femur in Malay Population

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY:Clinical practice in our country showed a lack of suitable implants that perfectly match the anthropometry of the local population. However, there have been no reports or comprehensive studies conducted to substantiate this argument. We therefore prospectively studied 120 hips from sixty subjects with an average age of 25±5.18 years old. The average weight and height were 61.48±13.84 kg and 1.65±9.63 m respectively. The exclusion criteria were pregnant woman, those who had injury to the hip joint, and those with implant or prosthesis. Four parameters were measured -the femoral head diameter (FHD), femoral neck length (FNL), femoral neck width (FNW) and collo-diaphyseal angle (CDA). Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between left and right femora but significant differences were found between male and female subjects. The results for the male and female femurs are as follows -FHD: 43.6±3.1 mm and 38.9±2.2 mm; FNL: 91.1±5.7 mm and 81.8±4.3 mm; FNW: 28.9±3.4 mm and 26.0±4.3 mm; CDA: 132.3°±3.4° and 129.9°±4.0°. This data could be used as a guideline to design a more suitable implant for the Malay population which covers most of the South East Asian countries.

show abstract

“…It is important and indispensable to know the morphometric characteristics of the proximal femur, with the intent of minimizing the risk of complications related to surgical procedures executed in the area due to vascular, traumatic or metabolic causes, and to achieve an alignment of prosthesis to be implanted (Mahaisavariya et al, 2002). Morphometric studies of the proximal femur were performed in different populations and communities (Mahaisavariya et al;El-Kaissi et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morphometric studies of the proximal femur were performed in different populations and communities (Mahaisavariya et al;El-Kaissi et al, 2005). The data obtained from these studies demonstrated that femoral morphometry had regional features and social differences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proximal Femoral Epiphysis: Manual Morphometry versus Digital Morphometry

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY:It is important and necessary to know the morphometric characteristics of the proximal femur in order to reduce the risk of complications associated with surgical procedures performed in the area due to vascular, metabolic or trauma causes, and to achieve an alignment of prosthesis to be implanted. The morphometric analysis has proved possible to be used, and can be a valid help to obtain certain parameters that may contribute to scientific research in several areas. For this, a good understanding of evaluation techniques and principles that can be applied to obtain reliable and valid results is needed. To measure the proximal femoral epiphysis by manual morphometry, with the aid of the caliper, and digital morphometry, with the aid of software and compare them. Twenty nine femurs were used to measure the following parameters: diameter of the femoral head in the cranio caudal axis (DFH-CC) and sagittal axis (DFH-S), diameter of the femoral neck cranio caudal axis (DFN-CC) and sagittal axis (DFN-S), length of the femoral neck (LFN) and length of the intertrochanteric line (LIL). After the measurements, the mean values were compared between the two morphometric techniques. The manual morphometry obtained the following average values: DFH-CC 4.42±0.44, DFH-S 4.38±0.47; DFN-CC 3.10±0.35; DFN-S 2.50±0.37; LFN 2.55±0.42; LIL 4.79±0.62. While the values obtained by digital morphometry were: DFH-CC 3.09±0.41, DFH-S 3.35±0.40; DFN-CC 1.79±0.26; DFN-S 2.26±0.23; LFN 1.42±0.33; LIL 3.33±0.54. All parameters measured from the manual technique showed values significantly higher (p<0.05) than values obtained by digital morphometry. This study showed that there is no morphometry gold standard. Different morphometric methods can effectively reproduce, the values of morphometric anatomical structures, depending on the purpose of the study, the anatomical structures and experience of the researcher.

show abstract

Morphological study of the proximal femur: a new method of geometrical assessment using 3-dimensional reverse engineering

Cited by 123 publications

References 3 publications

LCPD: Reduced Range of Motion Resulting From Extra- and Intraarticular Impingement

LCPD: Reduced Range of Motion Resulting From Extra- and Intraarticular Impingement

Morphology Study of the Proximal Femur in Malay Population

Proximal Femoral Epiphysis: Manual Morphometry versus Digital Morphometry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About