Literature DB >> 20615507

Assessment of the bilateral asymmetry of human femurs based on physical, densitometric, and structural rigidity characteristics.

Melissa A Pierre1, David Zurakowski, Ara Nazarian, Diana A Hauser-Kara, Brian D Snyder.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive geometric, densitometric, biomechanical, and statistical analysis of paired femurs for an adult population over a wide age range using three imaging modalities to quantify the departure from symmetry in size, bone mineral density, and cross-sectional structural rigidities. Femur measurements were obtained from 20 pairs of cadaveric femurs. Dimensions of these anatomic sites were measured using calipers directly on the bone and plain radiographs. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure bone mineral density. Bone mineral content and axial and bending rigidities were determined from the CT imaging. No differences were observed between the geometric measurements, DXA based bone mineral density and axial and bending rigidities of left and right femurs (P>0.05 for all cases). Left and right proximal femurs are not significantly different based on geometric, densitometric, and structural rigidity measurements. However, absolute left-right differences for individual patients can be substantial. When using the contralateral femur as a control, the number of femur pairs required to assess significant changes in anatomic dimensions and structural properties induced by a tumor, infection, fracture, or implanted device can range from 3 to 165 pairs depending on the desired effect size or sensitivity (5% or 10% difference). This information is important both for femoral arthroplasty implant design and the use of the contralateral femur as an intra-subject control for clinical assessment and research studies. In addition, our statistical analysis provides sample size estimates for planning future orthopedic research studies. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20615507      PMCID: PMC4407690          DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.02.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  51 in total

Review 1.  Computer simulation: how can it help the surgeon optimize implant position?

Authors:  Philip C Noble; Nobuhiko Sugano; James D Johnston; Matthew T Thompson; Michael A Conditt; Charles A Engh; Kenneth B Mathis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Estimation of mechanical properties of cortical bone by computed tomography.

Authors:  S M Snyder; E Schneider
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  Predicting fracture through benign skeletal lesions with quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  Brian D Snyder; Diana A Hauser-Kara; John A Hipp; David Zurakowski; Andrew C Hecht; Mark C Gebhardt
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Precision of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in determining bone mineral density and content of various skeletal sites.

Authors:  H Sievänen; P Oja; I Vuori
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Total and regional bone mass in female soccer players.

Authors:  H Alfredson; P Nordström; R Lorentzon
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 4.333

6.  The anatomic basis of femoral component design.

Authors:  P C Noble; J W Alexander; L J Lindahl; D T Yew; W M Granberry; H S Tullos
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Age and sex-related changes in the structure and strength of the human femoral shaft.

Authors:  R B Martin; P J Atkinson
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  The precision and usefulness of preoperative planning for cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alejandro González Della Valle; Gastón Slullitel; Francisco Piccaluga; Eduardo A Salvati
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Two new regions of interest to evaluate separately cortical and trabecular BMD in the proximal femur using DXA.

Authors:  Sven Prevrhal; Margarita Meta; Harry K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-11-04       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Right versus left symmetry of ulnar variance. A radiographic assessment.

Authors:  D M Freedman; G S Edwards; M J Willems; R A Meals
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  11 in total

1.  Are the left and right proximal femurs symmetric?

Authors:  Ernest Y Young; Jeremy Gebhart; Daniel Cooperman; Nicholas U Ahn
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  An exploratory study into measuring the cortical bone thickness from CT in the presence of metal implants.

Authors:  Tristan Whitmarsh; Graham M Treece; Andrew H Gee; Kenneth E S Poole
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Left-right differences in the proximal femur's strength of post-menopausal women: a multicentric finite element study.

Authors:  F Taddei; C Falcinelli; L Balistreri; P Henys; F Baruffaldi; S Sigurdsson; V Gudnason; T B Harris; R Dietzel; G Armbrecht; S Boutroy; E Schileo
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Increasing shape modelling accuracy by adjusting for subject positioning: an application to the analysis of radiographic proximal femur symmetry using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.

Authors:  C Lindner; G A Wallis; T F Cootes
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  The medial femoral wall can play a more important role in unstable intertrochanteric fractures compared with lateral femoral wall: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Boyuan Nie; Xueying Chen; Jing Li; Dou Wu; Qiang Liu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Three-dimensional analysis of shape variations and symmetry of the fibula, tibia, calcaneus and talus.

Authors:  Nazlı Tümer; Vahid Arbabi; Willem Paul Gielis; Pim A de Jong; Harrie Weinans; Gabrielle J M Tuijthof; Amir A Zadpoor
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2018-11-04       Impact factor: 2.610

7.  Odontoid Process and Femur: A Novel Bond in Anatomy.

Authors:  Anastasios Vasilopoulos; Gregory Tsoucalas; Eleni Panagouli; Gregory Trypsianis; Vasilios Thomaidis; Aliki Fiska
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-03-23

8.  Body-Worn IMU Human Skeletal Pose Estimation Using a Factor Graph-Based Optimization Framework.

Authors:  Timothy McGrath; Leia Stirling
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.576

9.  Volume fusion of CT images to measure femoral symmetricity.

Authors:  Peyman Bakhshayesh; Olof Sandberg; Vishal Kumar; Adam Ali; Anders Enocson
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 1.246

10.  Bilateral symmetry of the subtalar joint facets and the relationship between the morphology and osteoarthritic changes.

Authors:  Roeland P Kleipool; Gwendolyn Vuurberg; Sjoerd A S Stufkens; Alie E van der Merwe; Roelof-Jan Oostra
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 2.414

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.