Literature DB >> 16627151

Common misconceptions of normal hip joint relations on pelvic radiographs.

Shibu P Krishnan1, R W J Carrington, Syed Mohiyaddin, Nicholas Garlick.   

Abstract

This study defines normal bilateral variations in offset and hip center location on pelvic radiographs. The relationship of the femoral head center to the tip of the greater trochanter and that of offset to medullary canal diameter are also defined. Measurements of the offset, hip center location, height of the tip of the greater trochanter from the femoral head center, and medullary canal diameter were carried out on 100 normal pelvic radiographs. The offset of one hip was found to predict that of the contralateral hip to within 4.62 mm with 95% confidence. Their hip center locations differed by 6.3 mm. The tip of the greater trochanter was, on average, 8 mm higher than the femoral head center. Although offset generally increased with an increase in medullary canal diameter, frequent discrepancies occurred in their relationship.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16627151     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.10.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  13 in total

1.  Preoperative radiographic assessment of limb-length discrepancy in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Geert Meermans; Ahmad Malik; Johan Witt; Fares Haddad
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Functional implications of femoral offset following hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fracture.

Authors:  Benjamin Buecking; Christoph Kolja Boese; Verena Anna Bergmeister; Michael Frink; Steffen Ruchholtz; Philipp Lechler
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  [Total hip replacement in developmental dysplasia: anatomical features and technical pitfalls].

Authors:  B M Holzapfel; D Bürklein; F Greimel; U Nöth; M Hoberg; H Gollwitzer; M Rudert
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Is total hip arthroplasty after hip arthrodesis as good as primary arthroplasty?

Authors:  Mariano Fernandez-Fairen; Antonio Murcia-Mazón; Ana Torres; Virginia Querales; Antonio Murcia
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Hip offset in total hip arthroplasty: quantitative measurement with navigation.

Authors:  Manish Dastane; Lawrence D Dorr; Rupesh Tarwala; Zhinian Wan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Changes of center of rotation and femoral offset in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jon A Bjarnason; Olav Reikeras
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-12

Review 7.  Computed tomography for preoperative planning in total hip arthroplasty: what radiologists need to know.

Authors:  Alexander Huppertz; Sebastian Radmer; Moritz Wagner; Torsten Roessler; Bernd Hamm; Martin Sparmann
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Changes in femoral offset is not associated with increased incidence of lateral hip pain following total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michael Foy; Daniel Kielminski; Daniel Cavazos; Awais Hussain; Anshum Sood; Mark Gonzalez
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2020-12-10

9.  Morphological consistency of bilateral hip joints in adults based on the X-ray and CT data.

Authors:  Ran Zhao; Hong Cai; Hua Tian; Ke Zhang
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 1.246

10.  A comparison of leg length and femoral offset discrepancies in hip resurfacing, large head metal-on- metal and conventional total hip replacement: a case series.

Authors:  Katie A Herman; Alan J Highcock; John D Moorehead; Simon J Scott
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2011-12-29       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.