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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cornelissen, Andries Johannes, Ferreira, Nando, Burger, Marilize Cornelle, Jordaan, Jacobus Daniel
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