Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
EDP Sciences
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8895924/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35244535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022004 |
_version_ | 1784663036385034240 |
---|---|
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 | PubMed |
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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8895924 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | EDP Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88959242022-03-23 Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies Cornelissen, Andries Johannes Ferreira, Nando Burger, Marilize Cornelle Jordaan, Jacobus Daniel SICOT J Original Article 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. EDP Sciences 2022-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8895924/ /pubmed/35244535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022004 Text en © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Cornelissen, Andries Johannes Ferreira, Nando Burger, Marilize Cornelle Jordaan, Jacobus Daniel Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies |
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 | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8895924/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35244535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022004 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cornelissenandriesjohannes proximalfemuranatomyimplantgeometrydiscrepancies AT ferreiranando proximalfemuranatomyimplantgeometrydiscrepancies AT burgermarilizecornelle proximalfemuranatomyimplantgeometrydiscrepancies AT jordaanjacobusdaniel proximalfemuranatomyimplantgeometrydiscrepancies |