Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies
Objectives: Due to ongoing concern about femur anatomy-implant mismatches, this cross-sectional study aimed to create a geometric femur profile and used it to identify and quantify possible mismatches between femur anatomy and cephalomedullary nail dimensions. The work further aimed to assess whethe...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
EDP Sciences
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | SICOT-J |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.sicot-j.org/articles/sicotj/full_html/2022/01/sicotj210119/sicotj210119.html |
| _version_ | 1819104228052828160 |
|---|---|
| author | Cornelissen Andries Johannes Ferreira Nando Burger Marilize Cornelle Jordaan Jacobus Daniel |
| author_facet | Cornelissen Andries Johannes Ferreira Nando Burger Marilize Cornelle Jordaan Jacobus Daniel |
| author_sort | Cornelissen Andries Johannes |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives: Due to ongoing concern about femur anatomy-implant mismatches, this cross-sectional study aimed to create a geometric femur profile and used it to identify and quantify possible mismatches between femur anatomy and cephalomedullary nail dimensions. The work further aimed to assess whether patient demographics affect anatomy-implant coherence. Methods: One hundred skeletally mature complete femur computer tomography (CT) scans were collected and exported to software enabling landmark placement and measures with multiplanar reconstruction techniques. Results: Clinically relevant anatomy-implant discrepancies included the femur neck and shaft axis offset 6.1 ± 1.7 mm (95% CI [5.7–6.4]), femur radius of curvature 1.2 ± 0.3 m (95% CI [1.1–1.2]), femur anteversion 18.8 ± 9.2 (95% CI [16.9–20.6]). The implants reviewed in this study did not compensate for the femur neck and shaft axis offset and had a larger radius of curvature than the studied population. Clinically significant demographic geometry differences were not identified. Conclusion: There were discrepancies between femur anatomy and cephalomedullary nail implant design; however, no clinically significant femur feature inconsistency was identified among the demographic subgroups. Due to the identified anatomy-implant discrepancies, including the femur neck and shaft axis offset, we suggest that these measurements be considered for future implant design and surgical technique. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T02:03:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4d06157a0141490d89d553a20030fe2a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2426-8887 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T02:03:01Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | EDP Sciences |
| record_format | Article |
| series | SICOT-J |
| spelling | doaj.art-4d06157a0141490d89d553a20030fe2a2022-12-21T18:42:35ZengEDP SciencesSICOT-J2426-88872022-01-018510.1051/sicotj/2022004sicotj210119Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepanciesCornelissen Andries Johannes0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6261-2235Ferreira Nando1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0567-3373Burger Marilize Cornelle2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2831-4960Jordaan Jacobus Daniel3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6150-9463Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch UniversityDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch UniversityDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch UniversityDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch UniversityObjectives: Due to ongoing concern about femur anatomy-implant mismatches, this cross-sectional study aimed to create a geometric femur profile and used it to identify and quantify possible mismatches between femur anatomy and cephalomedullary nail dimensions. The work further aimed to assess whether patient demographics affect anatomy-implant coherence. Methods: One hundred skeletally mature complete femur computer tomography (CT) scans were collected and exported to software enabling landmark placement and measures with multiplanar reconstruction techniques. Results: Clinically relevant anatomy-implant discrepancies included the femur neck and shaft axis offset 6.1 ± 1.7 mm (95% CI [5.7–6.4]), femur radius of curvature 1.2 ± 0.3 m (95% CI [1.1–1.2]), femur anteversion 18.8 ± 9.2 (95% CI [16.9–20.6]). The implants reviewed in this study did not compensate for the femur neck and shaft axis offset and had a larger radius of curvature than the studied population. Clinically significant demographic geometry differences were not identified. Conclusion: There were discrepancies between femur anatomy and cephalomedullary nail implant design; however, no clinically significant femur feature inconsistency was identified among the demographic subgroups. Due to the identified anatomy-implant discrepancies, including the femur neck and shaft axis offset, we suggest that these measurements be considered for future implant design and surgical technique.https://www.sicot-j.org/articles/sicotj/full_html/2022/01/sicotj210119/sicotj210119.htmlfemur neck-shaft axis offsetimplant mismatchfemur geometrycephalomedullary nails |
| spellingShingle | Cornelissen Andries Johannes Ferreira Nando Burger Marilize Cornelle Jordaan Jacobus Daniel Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies SICOT-J femur neck-shaft axis offset implant mismatch femur geometry cephalomedullary nails |
| title | Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies |
| title_full | Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies |
| title_fullStr | Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies |
| title_full_unstemmed | Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies |
| title_short | Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies |
| title_sort | proximal femur anatomy implant geometry discrepancies |
| topic | femur neck-shaft axis offset implant mismatch femur geometry cephalomedullary nails |
| url | https://www.sicot-j.org/articles/sicotj/full_html/2022/01/sicotj210119/sicotj210119.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT cornelissenandriesjohannes proximalfemuranatomyimplantgeometrydiscrepancies AT ferreiranando proximalfemuranatomyimplantgeometrydiscrepancies AT burgermarilizecornelle proximalfemuranatomyimplantgeometrydiscrepancies AT jordaanjacobusdaniel proximalfemuranatomyimplantgeometrydiscrepancies |