Osteometric study of the upper end of femur and its clinical applications

Murlimanju, B. V.; Prabhu, Latha V.; Pai, Mángala M.; Kumar, Bhaskaranand; Dhananjaya, K V N; Prashanth, K. U.

doi:10.1007/s00590-011-0823-9

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All measurements taken with the caliper showed values significantly higher than the values obtained with the measurement using the software (Table I). Murlimanju et al (2012) working with the calipers, have found values similar to this present study, for example: this work has obtained the average to the diameter of the femoral head (sagittal axis) of 4.38 cm, while the average found by the aforementioned authors was 4.15 cm. With respect to the diameter of the femoral neck (cranio caudal axis), the present study obtained an average of 3.09 cm and Murlimanjur et al, have obtained an average value of 3.02.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The morphometry consisted of the following parameters: DFH -diameter of the femoral head in the cranio caudal axis (distance in a straight line from the upper end to the lower end of the femoral head) and sagittal axis (distance in a straight line from the front end behind end of the femoral head); DFN -diameter of the femoral neck in a cranio caudal axis (distance in a straight line from the upper end to the lower end of the anatomical neck of the femur) and sagittal axis (distance in a straight line, the front end to the rear end of the lap anatomy of the femur); LFN-length of the femoral neck (distance in a straight line between the lower region of the femoral head and the base of the greater trochanter) and LIL -length of the intertrochanteric line (distance in a straight line joining the highest point of trochanters highest and lowest previously (Mourao & Vasconcellos; Murlimanju et al;Iyem et al, 2013). Initially, the samples were measured with the aid of the caliper ( Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proximal Femoral Epiphysis: Manual Morphometry versus Digital Morphometry

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, the implant was designed utilizing western anthropometric database as the gold standard which varied in linear and angular specifications [ 8 , 37 ]. The implants produced were bigger in size, risking more bone stock in endosteal through surgery [ 8 , 37 , 38 ]. This phenomenon has led to the tendency on the part of global implant manufacturers’ to produce smaller implants with other modifications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design process of cementless femoral stem using a nonlinear three dimensional finite element analysis

Baharuddin

Salleh

Zulkifly

et al. 2014

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMinimal available information concerning hip morphology is the motivation for several researchers to study the difference between Asian and Western populations. Current use of a universal hip stem of variable size is not the best option for all femur types. This present study proposed a new design process of the cementless femoral stem using a three dimensional model which provided more information and accurate analysis compared to conventional methods.MethodsThis complete design cycle began with morphological analysis, followed by femoral stem design, fit and fill analysis, and nonlinear finite element analysis (FEA). Various femur parameters for periosteal and endosteal canal diameters are measured from the osteotomy level to 150 mm below to determine the isthmus position.ResultsThe results showed better total fit (53.7%) and fill (76.7%) canal, with more load distributed proximally to prevent stress shielding at calcar region. The stem demonstrated lower displacement and micromotion (less than 40 μm) promoting osseointegration between the stem–bone and providing primary fixation stability.ConclusionThis new design process could be used as a preclinical assessment tool and will shorten the design cycle by identifying the major steps which must be taken while designing the femoral stem.

show abstract

“…Approximately 200,000 of them are those who reside in the UK and the USA. This is a case which negatively affects in the short-term and the long-term success of operations carried out in Asian and African countries owing to morphological incongruity of implant bones, where the proximal femoral morphometry is different from the one in Western countries, except for the Japanese who produce in accordance with their people's proximal femoral morphometry thanks to their highly-developed prosthesis industry (Baharuddin et al, 2011;Murlimanju et al, 2012;Atilla et al, 2007;Hoaglund and Low, 1980; *Correspondence to: Mustafa G€ uvençer, Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Dokuz Eyl€ ul, Balçova, 35340-Izmir, Turkey. E-mail: mustafa.guvencer@deu.edu.tr Isaac et al, 1997;Rubin et al, 1992;Mahaisavariya et al, 2002;Noble et al, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphometric evaluation of proximal femur in patients with unilateral total hip prosthesis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is important to know the morphometric characteristics of the proximal femur. This is necessary to reduce the risk of complications related to surgical procedures performed in the area due to vascular, metabolic, or traumatic causes. It is of importance for achieving the alignment of the prosthesis to be implanted as well. The aim of this study was to evaluate the morphometric characteristics of the proximal femur and to establish a database for making and performing total hip prosthesis. Anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiographs of 162 cases, with a mean age of 65.6 years, who had undergone unilateral total hip arthroplasty were used in this study. Femoral head diameter (FHD), femoral neck width (FNW), femoral neck length (FNL), femoral neck axis length (FNAL), intertrochanteric line length (ILL), and neck-shaft angle (NSA) were measured on radiographs obtained digitally using setrapacs media. FHD was found to be 48.1 ± 3.7 mm, FNW 35.4 ± 4.2 mm, FNL 30.8 ± 6.1 mm, FNAL 98.6 ± 9.4 mm, ILL 81.1 ± 7.9 mm, and NSA 130.4 ± 5.1° on average. The comparison of the mean values for females and males revealed a statistically significant difference between the FHD, FNW, FNL, FNAL, and ILL (P = 0.000). There was no statistically significant difference in NSA between males and females (P = 0.356). A weak correlation was found between age and parameter values using correlation analysis (r < 0.24, P > 0.05). In morphometric assessment of the proximal femur, taking into consideration regional and sexual differences is of importance for prosthesis design and surgical success.

show abstract

Osteometric study of the upper end of femur and its clinical applications

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Proximal Femoral Epiphysis: Manual Morphometry versus Digital Morphometry

Proximal Femoral Epiphysis: Manual Morphometry versus Digital Morphometry

Design process of cementless femoral stem using a nonlinear three dimensional finite element analysis

Morphometric evaluation of proximal femur in patients with unilateral total hip prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About