The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2001
DOI: 10.1007/s002640100245
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The femoral canal fill of two different cementless stem designs

Abstract: In 19 cadaver femora we compared the fill of two types of femoral stems (plastic replica) using computed tomographic (CT) scan with a border detecting computer program and conventional radiographs. In the metaphyseal area the fill of the two types was surprisingly similar. In the diaphysis the straight stem filled significantly more than the proximally anatomic and distally over-reamed stem. Using conventional radiographs the fill measures were from 1.2 to 2.1 times higher than the values of CT scan, depending… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The canal fill index (CFI) was determined to evaluate the metaphyseal/diaphyseal filling of the femoral canal by the cementless stem implant on 3 different heights (CFI I: at the level of the LT, CFI II: 1 cm below the LT, CFI III: 3 cm below the LT). On each height, the horizontal diameter of the stem implant was measured and divided by the endosteal medullary canal diameter, multiplied by 100 [39,40]. On preoperative X-ray FO, AO, HO and LL were measured.…”
Section: Radiographic Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The canal fill index (CFI) was determined to evaluate the metaphyseal/diaphyseal filling of the femoral canal by the cementless stem implant on 3 different heights (CFI I: at the level of the LT, CFI II: 1 cm below the LT, CFI III: 3 cm below the LT). On each height, the horizontal diameter of the stem implant was measured and divided by the endosteal medullary canal diameter, multiplied by 100 [39,40]. On preoperative X-ray FO, AO, HO and LL were measured.…”
Section: Radiographic Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each slice was evaluated for bone-implant contact with use of DotDotGoose software (American Museum of Natural History) 24 , and bone-implant contact was reported as a percentage of the implant surface. Canal fill indices for the middle and distal regions were calculated with use of ImageJ (National Institutes of Health) to assess the stem size in relation to the femoral canal 4 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Varying degrees of early micromotion from 20 to >150 µm lead to either predominantly bone or predominantly fibrous tissue formation 2 . Since undersizing of the femoral stem has been found to lead to early aseptic loosening or migration, parameters such as bone-implant contact and the canal fill index were established to calculate the correct stem size 3,4 . Stable osseointegration usually takes approximately 4 to 12 weeks and is the main factor responsible for the long-term survival of cementless implants 5 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Briefly, varus/valgus stem alignment was measured as the difference in degrees between stem axis and proximal femoral shaft axis. The Canal Fill Index (CFI) was determined, to evaluate the meta−/ diaphyseal filling of the femoral canal by the cementless stem three centimeter below the lesser trochanter [21, 22]. Acetabular and femoral offset (AO, FO) were measured as the distance between the center of rotation of the femoral head and ipsilateral teardrop figure and the center of rotation and proximal femoral shaft axis, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%