Literature DB >> 19423418

Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty.

G Lecerf1, M H Fessy, R Philippot, P Massin, F Giraud, X Flecher, J Girard, P Mertl, E Marchetti, E Stindel.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND
OBJECTIVE: Femoral offset is supposed to influence the results of hip replacement but little is known about the accurate method of measure and the true effect of offset modifications.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This article is a collection of independent anatomic, radiological and clinical works, which purpose is to assess knowledge of the implications of femoral offset for preoperative templating and total hip arthroplasty.
RESULTS: There is a strong correlation between femoral offset, abductors lever arm and hip abductor strength. Hip lateralization is independent of the femoral endomedullary characteristics. The abductors lever arm is highly correlated to the gluteus medius activation angle. There were correlations between femoral offset and endomedullary shape. The hip center was high and medial for stovepipe metaphysis while it was lower and lateralized for champagne - flute upper femur. A study was performed to compare the femoral offset measured by X-ray and CT-scan in 50 patients, demonstrated that plain radiography underestimates offset measurement. The 2D templating cannot appreciate the rotation of the lower limb. Taking into account the horizontal plane is essential to obtain proper 3D planning of the femoral offset. A randomized study was designed to compare femoral offset measurements after hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. This study underlined hip resurfacing reduced the femoral offset, while hip replacement increased offset. However, the reduction of femoral offset after hip resurfacing does not affect the function. A pilot study was designed to assess the results of 120 hip arthroplasties with a modular femoral neck. This study showed that the use of a modular collar ensures an easier restoration of the femoral offset. A cohort of high offset stems (Lubinus 117 degrees) was retrospectively assessed. The survival rate was slightly lower that the standard design reported in the Swedish register. Finally, the measurement of offset and leg length was assessed with the help of computer assistance. The software changed the initial schedule (obtained by templating) in 29%.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, femoral offset restoration is essential to improve function and longevity of hip arthroplasty. CT-scan is more accurate than plain radiography to assess femoral offset. Hip resurfacing decreases offset without effect on function. Modular neck and computer assistance may improve intraoperative calculation and reproduction of femoral offset. Increasing offset with a standard cemented design may decrease long-term fixation. Level IV: Retrospective or historical series.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19423418     DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res        ISSN: 1877-0568            Impact factor:   2.256


  77 in total

1.  An evaluation of CT-scan to locate the femoral head centre and its implication for hip surgeons.

Authors:  Anthony Viste; Franck Trouillet; Rodolphe Testa; Laurence Chèze; Romain Desmarchelier; Michel-Henri Fessy
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 1.246

2.  Radiographic templating of total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures.

Authors:  Dror Lakstein; Ira Bachar; Ronen Debi; Omri Lubovsky; Ornit Cohen; Zachary Tan; Ehud Atoun
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  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

4.  Short stems reproduce femoral offset better than standard stems in total hip arthroplasty: a case-control study.

Authors:  Roger Erivan; Anne-Sophie Muller; Guillaume Villatte; Stéphane Millerioux; Aurélien Mulliez; Stéphane Boisgard; Stéphane Descamps
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  What is the tolerated width of periacetabular osteophytes to avoid impingement in cementless THA?: a three-dimensional simulation study.

Authors:  Jung-Taek Kim; Jusung Lee; Young-Kyun Lee; Yong-Chan Ha; Ye-Yeon Won; Kunwoo Lee; Vikas Khanduja; Kyung-Hoi Koo
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2018-06-23       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 6.  Restoration of center of rotation and balance of THR.

Authors:  Zachary C Lum; Lawrence D Dorr
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-09-06

7.  Influence of physical activity and skeleton geometry on bone mass at the proximal femur in 10- to 12-year-old children--a longitudinal study.

Authors:  G Cardadeiro; F Baptista; N Rosati; V Zymbal; K F Janz; L B Sardinha
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Treatment of femoral neck fractures in elderly patients over 60 years of age - which is the ideal modality of primary joint replacement?

Authors:  Christian Ossendorf; Max J Scheyerer; Guido A Wanner; Hans-Peter Simmen; Clément Ml Werner
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2010-10-20

9.  Does total hip arthroplasty restore native hip anatomy? three-dimensional reconstruction analysis.

Authors:  Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Dimitris Dimitriou; Guoan Li; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Fluoroscopy and imageless navigation enable an equivalent reconstruction of leg length and global and femoral offset in THA.

Authors:  Markus Weber; Michael Woerner; Robert Springorum; Ernst Sendtner; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Joachim Grifka; Tobias Renkawitz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.