Segmentation of the canine population in different femoral morphological groups

Kangal ve Alman Çoban Köpeklerinin Proximal Femur Bölümünde Cavum Medullare’nin Geometrik Özellikleri

“…The anatomists and orthopedic surgeons have long been interested in the variations of proximal femoral morphology especially associated with the femoral implant design and implantation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) (Abadie et al, 2010;Husmann et al, 1997;Noble et al, 1988;Palierne et al, 2008;Rawal et al, 2012;Tawada et al, 2015). Although different types of the implants are available from the manufacturers, the database for size and shape characteristics of proximal femur has still required to designing new implant and auxiliary equipment and to enhance the performance or longevity of the implants (Casper et al, 2012;Chantarapanich et al, 2011;Ganz et al, 2010;Laine et al, 2000;Noble et al, 2003;RashmirRaven and DeYoung, 1992;Umer et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2014).…”

“…Because, the close adaptation of the prosthesis to the bone is essential to achieving optimal mechanical stability and fixation for THA (Casper et al, 2012;Ganz et al, 2010;Umer et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2014) The morphometric method to understand the shape and size of the proximal femur regarding femoral stem design was firstly described in detail by Noble et al (1988) in human femur. In this method, to understand the proximal femoral morphology with relevance for THA, the position of the femoral head and the geometrical variations in the medullary canal should be evaluated in particular (Franklin et al, 2012;Husmann et al, 1997;Noble et al, 1988;Noble et al, 2003;Palierne et al, 2008;Tawada et al, 2015;Yang et al, 2014). The position of femoral head or neck of the dog has already been studied in detail (Dudley et al, 2006;Franklin et al, 2012;Kuo et al, 1998;Madsen and Svalostaga, 1994;Palierne et al, 2006;Palierne et al, 2008;Rumph and Hathcock, 1990;Sarierler, 2004;Tomlinson et al, 2007;Wigger et al, 2008).…”

“…In this method, to understand the proximal femoral morphology with relevance for THA, the position of the femoral head and the geometrical variations in the medullary canal should be evaluated in particular (Franklin et al, 2012;Husmann et al, 1997;Noble et al, 1988;Noble et al, 2003;Palierne et al, 2008;Tawada et al, 2015;Yang et al, 2014). The position of femoral head or neck of the dog has already been studied in detail (Dudley et al, 2006;Franklin et al, 2012;Kuo et al, 1998;Madsen and Svalostaga, 1994;Palierne et al, 2006;Palierne et al, 2008;Rumph and Hathcock, 1990;Sarierler, 2004;Tomlinson et al, 2007;Wigger et al, 2008). To the best of our knowledge there are incomplete data to evaluate variations in the geometry of the medullary canal of proximal femur in dog.…”

“…To the best of our knowledge there are incomplete data to evaluate variations in the geometry of the medullary canal of proximal femur in dog. The isthmus position index (IPI), the corticomedullary index (CMI) and the canal flare index (CFI) are the most useful bone indices to evaluate objectively proximal femoral geometry in respect to THA (Abadie et al, 2010;Breusch, 2005;Noble et al, 1988;Noble et al, 2003;Palierne et al, 2006;Palierne et al, 2008;Rawal et al, 2012;Umer et al, 2010;Yeung et al, 2006;Yang et al, 2014). The isthmus position is measured in human femur studies (Noble et al, 1998;Noble et al, 2003;Rawal et al, 2012;Sugano et al, 1998;Umer et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2014).…”

“…The isthmus position is measured in human femur studies (Noble et al, 1998;Noble et al, 2003;Rawal et al, 2012;Sugano et al, 1998;Umer et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2014). For dogs, the proximal and distal borders of isthmus are described with the IPI by Palierne et al 2006 andPalierne et al 2008. Although, the CMI of dog femur has been indicated on the midregions and in the coronal plane (Palierne et al, 2008), the cross-sectional data throughout the proximal femur in both direction may more useful to best understanding of proximal femur (Noble et al, 2003;Rawal et al, 2012;Sen et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2014).…”