4.6 Article

Proximal Femoral Anatomy in the Normal Human Population

Journal

CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
Volume 467, Issue 4, Pages 876-885

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0473-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we developed a complete description of the morphology of the proximal femur. Then, using this framework, we (1) determined normal population means, standard deviations, and ranges; (2) established differences among subpopulations; and (3) showed correlations among the various measurements. To accomplish these objectives, we analyzed 375 adult femurs. Specimens were digitally photographed in standardized positions, measurements being obtained using ImageJ software. Three parameters of the head-neck relationship were assessed. Translation was examined through four raw offset measurements (anterior, posterior, superior, inferior) used to calculate anterior-posterior and superior-inferior ratios. Rotation was investigated through anteroposterior (AP) and lateral physeal angles. Concavity was examined using alpha, beta, gamma, and delta angles. Two parameters of the neck-shaft relationship were assessed, neck version and angle of inclination. Average anterior-posterior and superior-inferior ratios were 1.14 and 0.90. Average AP and lateral physeal angles were 74.33A degrees and 81.83A degrees, respectively. Averages for alpha, beta, gamma, and delta angles were 45.61A degrees, 41.85A degrees, 53.46A degrees, and 42.95A degrees, respectively. Average neck version and angle of inclination were 9.73A degrees and 129.23A degrees, respectively. Differences existed between males and females and between those younger and older than 50 years. Correlations were observed between translation and concavity, and translation and the neck-shaft relationships. Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available