Proximal Femoral Epiphysis: Manual Morphometry versus Digital Morphometry

Abstract

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.

Osteology and radiology of the Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) pelvic limb

“…The diameter was defined as a distance between these two points through the centre of the femoral head (Acar & Unal, ). The length of the femoral neck was straight‐line distance from the inferior region of the femoral head to the base of the greater trochanter (Acar & Unal, ; Menezes, Rocha, De Oliveira, De Albuquerque, & Caiaffo, ). The width of the femoral neck was measured at the mid‐point of the femoral neck and perpendicular to its axis (Acar & Unal, ).…”

Morphoometry of Femures From the Microregion of Três Lagoas

“…The methodology of morphometric studies varies from digital studies (Pires, et al 2012;Souza, et al 2010;Labronici et al, 2009) to analogue studies (Gusmão, et al 2011;Mourão & Vasconcellos 2001;Silva, 2003;Menezes, et al 2015). The present study used the analog methodology, since bones are three-dimensional structures and the digital measurement uses one-dimensional images, which puts the accuracy of the results at risk (Menezes et al, 2015).…”

Photogrammetric Evaluation of Proximal Femoral Morphometric Parameters of Southern Nigerians

“…These researchers have shown that the femoral trabecular bone provides the biomechanical strength of the proximal femur [12] [13]. Hence, Faulkner et al [14], Menezes et al [15], Bob-Manuel et al [5], Tokpınar et al [16], Tumusiime et al [17], Gupta et al [18], and Skaria et al [19] introduced and measured parameters to meet this need. Thus, Bob-Manuel et al [5] Several researchers have directly measured dry femur bone [15,16,17,18,19] while others [5,20,21,22] employed the use of radiograph in assessing the morphometry of os femora as it is important to the design and develop orthopaedic implants and prosthesis of the proximal portion of the femur; and for prognosis and management of proximal femoral fractures [20,21], hence in this study photogrammetry like Toogood et al [10] was employed which has not really been explored in the study of proximal morphometric parameters of the os femora that will conform to the biomechanical and anatomical features of the head, neck, proximal intertrochanteric or epiphyseal area and shaft of the femur.…”