Literature DB >> 21213086

Functional and anatomic orientation of the femoral head.

David Wright1, Cari Whyne, Michael Hardisty, Hans J Kreder, Omri Lubovsky.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Femoral neck geometry directly affects load transmission through the hip. Orientations may be described anatomically or using functional definitions that consider load transmission. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study introduces and applies a new method for characterizing functional femoral orientation based on the distribution of subchondral bone density in the femoral head and compares it with orientation measures generated via established anatomic landmark-based methods. Both orientation methods then are used to characterize side-to-side symmetry of orientation and differences between men and women within the population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of CT imaging data from 28 patients was performed. Anatomic orientation was determined using established two-dimensional and three-dimensional landmarking methods. Subchondral bone density maps were generated and used to define a density-weighted surface normal vector. Orientation angles generated by the three methods were compared, with side-to-side symmetry and differences between genders also investigated.
RESULTS: The three methods measured substantially different angles for anteversion and neck-shaft angle. Weak correlations were found between anatomic and functional orientation measures for neck-shaft angle only.
CONCLUSIONS: Neck-shaft angles calculated using the functional orientation method corresponded well with previous in vivo loading data. An absence of strong correlation between functional and anatomic measures reinforces the concept that bone geometry is not solely responsible for determining loading of the femoral head. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Diagnostic Studies--Investigating a Diagnostic Test. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21213086      PMCID: PMC3148390          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1754-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  17 in total

Review 1.  Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  D Tönnis; A Heinecke
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Subchondral bone in osteoarthritis.

Authors:  M D Grynpas; B Alpert; I Katz; I Lieberman; K P Pritzker
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Subchondral plate thickness reflects tensile stress in the primate acetabulum.

Authors:  P Dewire; P A Simkin
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  Computed tomography-osteoabsorptiometry for assessing the density distribution of subchondral bone as a measure of long-term mechanical adaptation in individual joints.

Authors:  M Müller-Gerbl; R Putz; N Hodapp; E Schulte; B Wimmer
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities.

Authors:  G Bergmann; G Deuretzbacher; M Heller; F Graichen; A Rohlmann; J Strauss; G N Duda
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Anteversion of the femur and idiopathic osteoarthrosis of the hip.

Authors:  J H Wedge; I Munkacsi; D Loback
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Load transfer across the pelvic bone.

Authors:  M Dalstra; R Huiskes
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and Hong Kong Chinese.

Authors:  F T Hoaglund; W D Low
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1980-10       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Importance of the dome and posterior wall as evidenced by bone density mapping in the acetabulum.

Authors:  Omri Lubovsky; David Wright; Michael Hardisty; Alex Kiss; Hans J Kreder; Cari Whyne
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 2.063

10.  The Frank Stinchfield Award: Morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning.

Authors:  M Maruyama; J R Feinberg; W N Capello; J A D'Antonio
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  The femoral neck-shaft angle on plain radiographs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christoph Kolja Boese; Jens Dargel; Johannes Oppermann; Peer Eysel; Max Joseph Scheyerer; Jan Bredow; Philipp Lechler
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Statistical model-based segmentation of the proximal femur in digital antero-posterior (AP) pelvic radiographs.

Authors:  Weiguo Xie; Jochen Franke; Cheng Chen; Paul A Grützner; Steffen Schumann; Lutz-P Nolte; Guoyan Zheng
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Acetabular orientation: anatomical and functional measurement.

Authors:  Omri Lubovsky; David Wright; Michael Hardisty; Alex Kiss; Hans Kreder; Cari Whyne
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2011-08-07       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Smaller insertion area and inefficient mechanics of the gluteus medius in females.

Authors:  Dustin Woyski; Anthony Olinger; Barth Wright
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 1.246

5.  Subchondral bone density distribution in the human femoral head.

Authors:  David A Wright; Michael Meguid; Omri Lubovsky; Cari M Whyne
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Avoiding malalignment in proximal femur fractures treated with newer generation cephalomedullary nails: Some technical tips.

Authors:  Arvind Kumar; Samarth Mittal; Aditya Jain; Vivek Trikha
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2018-11-23

7.  Automatic Femoral Deformity Analysis Based on the Constrained Local Models and Hough Forest.

Authors:  Lunhui Duan; Hao Sun; Delong Liu; Yinglun Tan; Yue Guo; Jianwen Chen; Xiaojing Ding
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Comparing two different automatic methods to measure femoral neck-shaft angle based on PointNet++ network.

Authors:  Zhe Li; Jiayu Yang; Xinghua Li; Kunzheng Wang; Jungang Han; Pei Yang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.996

9.  MR study of longitudinal variations in proximal femur 3D morphological shape and associations with cartilage health in hip osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Gaurav Inamdar; Valentina Pedoia; Jasmine Rossi-Devries; Michael A Samaan; Thomas M Link; Richard B Souza; Sharmila Majumdar
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  What is the relevance of the tip-apex distance as a predictor of lag screw cut-out?

Authors:  Jérôme M Goffin; Paul J Jenkins; Rishikesan Ramaesh; Pankaj Pankaj; A Hamish Simpson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.