Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Ann Natl Acad Med Sci 2018; 54(04): 203-215
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712831
Original Article

Anthropometric Study of Proximal Femur Geometry and Its Clinical Application

Ramchander Siwach
Department of Orthopaedics, Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The implants for fixation of proximal femur fractures and joint replacements have been designed taking into consideration of the anthropometry of the western population which vary from other ethnic groups. The present study aimed to study the morphology of the upper end of femur in relation to its various diameters and angles and compare the external and internal geometry of proximal femur as obtained from radiographs, with actual measurements on cadaveric specimens in Indian population. Seventy five pairs (150 bones) of cadaveric femora were studied morphologically and radiologically using standardized techniques to obtain various anthropometrics measurements. These values were compared with those reported in the literature for Hong Kong Chinese, Caucasian, Chinese and Western populations. Data were found to be quite different from them. It is proposed that implants designed for Western populations should be used judiciously and future implants be designed to match the morphology of the Indian bones.

Keywords

Anthropometry - proximal femur - cadaveric - Indian population

COL. SANGHAM LAL MEMORIAL ORATION delivered during the NAMSCON 2018 held at the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, Puducherry.




Publication History

Article published online:
09 May 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Pathrot D, Ul Haq R, Aggarwal AN, Nagar M, Bhatt S (2016). Assessment of the geometry of proximal femur for short cephallomedullary nail placement : an observational study in dry femora and living subjects. Indian J Orthop 50(3): 269-276.
  • 2 Roy S, Kundu R, Medda S, Gupta A, Nanrah BK (2014). Evaluation of proximal femoral geometry in plain anterior-posterior radiograph in Eastern-Indian population. J Clin Diagn Res 8(9): AC01-AC03.
  • 3 Maji PK, Roychowdhury A, Datta D (2012). Investigating the morphology of the proximal femur of the Indian population towards designing more suitable THR implants. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 22(1): 49-64.
  • 4 Hoaglund FT, Low WD (1980). Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and HongKong. Chinese Clin Orthop 152: 10-16.
  • 5 Reddy VS, Moorthy GVS, Reddy SG (1999). Do we need a special design of femoral component of total hip prosthesis in our patients? Indian J Orthop 33(4): 282-284.
  • 6 Noble C, Jerry W, Alexander BS, et al (1988). The anatomical basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Rel Res 235: 148-164.
  • 7 Rawal B, Ribeiro R, Malhotra R, Bhatnagar N (2012). Anthropometric measurements to design best-fit femoral stem for the Indian population. Indian J Orthop 46(1): 46-53.
  • 8 Bombelli R, Santore RF (1984). Cementless isoelastic total hip prosthesis: preliminary report on the first 215 consecutive cases. In: The Cementless Fixation of Hip Endoprosthesis. Morscher E, ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 243.
  • 9 Engelhardt A (1984). Casual histogenesis and biomechanical discoveries as a basis for cementless fixation of hip endoprosthesis. In: The Cementless Fixation of Hip Endoprosthesis. Morscher E, ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • 10 Zweymuller K (1986). A cementless titanium hip endoprosthesis system based on press-fit fixation: basic research and clinical results. Instr Course Lect 35: 203-225.
  • 11 Maheshwari AV, Zlowodzki MP, Siram G, Jain AK (2010). Femoral neck anteversion, acetabular anteversion and combined anteversion in the normal Indian adult population: a computed tomographic study. Indian J Orthop 44(3): 277-282.
  • 12 Saikia KC, Bhuyan SK, Rongphar R (2008). Anthropometric study of the hip joint in northeastern region population with computed tomography scan. Indian J Orthop 42(3): 260-266.
  • 13 Pi Y, Zhao Y, Wang W, He Z, Mao X (2013). Measurement of proximal femoral morphology and analysis of 500 cases in Hunan Province. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 38(9): 925-930.
  • 14 Atilla B, Oznur A, Cağlar O, Tokgözoğlu M, Alpaslan M (2007). Osteometry of the femora in Turkish individuals: a morphometric study in 114 cadaveric femora as an anatomic basis of femoral component design. Acta Orthop Traumatol 41(1): 64-68.