Get Permission Contractor, Umraniya, and Singh: Morphometric analysis of proximal femur in Indian population and its implications in Total Hip Arthroplasty


Introduction

Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is a common method of treating hip joint failure occurring due to osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteonecrosis, trauma and bone tumours.1 Here the geometric understanding of the proximal end of femur is not only significant for functional bipedal erect posture but becomes an essential parameter in pre-operative planning of osteotomy as well as the design and development of implants for THA.2 An accurate measurement is vital in selection of the implant to minimize the risk of complications like aseptic loosening, improper load distribution and discomfort resulting from mismatch as well as to ensure long term success through proper alignment of the prosthesis to be implanted.3

Moreover, the anthropological parameters of any bone is determined by genetic and environmental factors such as age, race, gender and lifestyle4, 5 and this leads to racial variations in the morphological parameters of proximal end of femur owing to lifestyle, physique, applied force and their distribution in India population. However, currently a range of standard sized femur implants designed from anthropometric data of western population are used for THA leading to discrepancy in regards to the measurements and this non-availability of data for Indian population can lead to complications in the long run.6, 7

The current study was designed to study and compare the morphology of proximal end of femur in Indian population with others.

Materials and Methods

The current study was conducted at the Department of Anatomy, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad and the other medical colleges of Central Gujarat Region. Around 94 dry human cadaveric bones of unknown age and sex were studied to determine the morphology of the proximal end of femur. All adult dry femur bones without any visible osseous pathologies like tumours, deformities, fractures, trauma were included in the study.

All measurements of the proximal end of femur were taken using Digital sliding Vernier caliper with 0.01 mm precision, goniometer and an Osteometric board. All measurements were taken by a single author to avoid any inter-observer error and each measurement was repeated thrice to avoid any intra observer error. Arithmetic average of the three readings was considered the final reading for the study.

The morphological examination of the proximal end of femur was done in following two steps:8, 9

The following parameters were observed:

  1. Femur length (FL): Femur was placed in a position parallel to the surface of osteometric board by rotating the femur shaft internally, then the distance between the highest point of the femur head to the lowest point of the medial condyle was measured as the femur length.

  2. Femoral head diameter (FHD): It was measured as the average of the diameter of the femoral head in the cranio caudal axis (distance in a straight line from the upper end to the lower end of the femoral head) and sagittal axis (distance in a straight line from the front end and behind end of the femoral head).

  3. Femoral neck length (FNL): The length of femoral neck was measured as the distance between the inferior region of base of femoral head and the lower end of intertrochanteric line.

  4. Femoral neck width (FNW): The diameter of the femoral neck in cranio-caudal axis (cc-axis) was measured as the distance in a straight line from the upper end to the lower end of the anatomical neck of the femur and the diameter of femoral neck in sagittal axis (s-axis) was measured as the distance in a straight line from the front end to the rear end of the femur.

  5. Neck-shaft angle (NSA): It was measured as the angle intersected between the long axis of the shaft of femur and the long axis of the neck of femur. Femoral shaft axis was considered as a vertical line from the tip of greater trochanter and Femoral neck axis was drawn by joining the center of head of femur and the midpoint of Intertrochanteric line. NSA was measured in the frontal plane by means of goniometry.

  6. Length of intertrochanteric line (LIL): It was measured as the distance in a straight line joining the highest and lowest point of trochanters.

The data was tabulated in Microsoft Office Excel 2016 software (Microsoft Corp.). The results were tabulated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. For the statistical analysis the Unpaired Student T-test was used to compare the morphological parameters between population of different geographic locations.

Results

The results obtained through morphometric analysis have been depicted in Table 1.

Table 1

Morphometric measurements of proximal femur in mm

FL

FHD

FNL

FNW

NSA

LIL

cc-axis

s-axis

cc-axis

s-axis

Mean ± SD

426.6 ± 15.82

39.60 ± 2.28

37.69 ± 3.99

3.455 ± 0.378

31.60 ± 2.32

26.47 ± 3.20

125.27 ± 2.54

6.71 ± 0.54

Median

42.63

39.36

37.67

3.48

32.09

27.28

125.00

6.70

Range

383.7 – 465.7

35.51 – 45.27

31.16 – 46.85

2.13 – 4.47

23.76 – 41.63

19.31 – 31.51

116 – 132

5.8 – 8.8

Table 2

Comparison of morphometric parameters of femur with Indian population

S. No.

Parameters

Present Study

Ravi et al10

Khan SM & Saheb SH11

Gujar et al12

Siwach RC13

Dhivya S et al14

1.

Population

Western Gujarat

South Indian

South Indian

Western Gujarat

North Indian

South Indian

2.

Sample Size

94

592

250

250

150

158

3.

FL

426.62 ± 15.82

447.1 ± 28.94*

446.2 ± 26.39*

438 ± 25.64*

36.9 ± 4.11*

41.66 ± 3.03*

4.

NL

34.55 ± 3.78

36.3 ± 5.4*

36.3 ± 4.2*

34.4 ± 3.8*

37.23 ± 4.65*

5.

NSA

125.27 ± 2.54

136.80 ± 4.45*

137

136.3 0 +6.0*

123.5 ± 4.34*

134.15 ± 5.52*

6.

FHD

CC-axis

39.60 ± 2.28

---

---

---

43.95 ± 3.06*

---

S-axis

37.69 ± 3.99

---

---

---

---

---

7.

FNW

CC-axis

31.60 ± 2.32

---

---

---

31.87 ± 2.91

---

S-axis

26.47 ± 3.20

---

---

---

24.90 ± 2.94*

---

8.

LIL

6.71 ± 0.54

---

---

---

---

---

[i] *The p-value is significant when the respective study is compared with the present study. (i.e. p <0.05)

Table 3

Comparison of morphometric parameters of femur with different population

S. No.

Parameters

Present Study

Menezes TM et al15

Zulyan T, Murshid KA16

Unnanuntana A et al17

Cho HJ et al18

Rubin PJ et al19

1

Population

Indian

Brazil

Arabian

Americans & Caucasians

Korean

French

Type of measurement

Cadaveric bones

Cadaveric bones

Cadaveric bones

Digital Photographs

3D Reconstruction

Radiographic Reconstruction

2

Sample Size

94

29

36 (R)

36 (L)

200

202

32

3

FL

426.62 ± 15.82

416.8 ± 68.6*

428.4 ± 24.9*

443.6 ± 21.8*

4

NL

34.55 ± 3.78

2.55±0.42*

5

NSA

125.27 ± 2.54

132.69 ± 5.91*

130.27 ± 6.25*

122.9 ± 7.6*

6

FHD

CC-axis

39.60 ± 2.28

4.42 ± 0.44*

45.2 ± 4.0*

43.4 ± 3.2*

52.09 ± 4.43*

45.50 ± 3.39*

43.4 ± 2.6*

S-axis

37.69 ± 3.99

4.38 ± 0.47*

44.7 ± 4.1*

44.3 ± 3.3*

---

---

---

7

FNW

CC-axis

31.60 ± 2.32

3.10 ± 0.35

30.7 ± 3.6

30.6 ± 3.0

---

---

---

S-axis

26.47 ± 3.20

2.50 ± 0.37

26.3 ± 3.1

25.5 ± 2.7

---

---

---

8

LIL

6.71 ± 0.54

4.79 ± 0.62*

---

---

---

---

[i] *The p-value is significant when the respective study is compared with the present study. (i.e. p < 0.05)

Discussion

As observed in Table 2, Table 3 we found a significant difference for the measured value when compared to those of different studies at the given degree of freedom (DF), i.e. ‘p’ value was < 0.05 implying that the morphometric parameters of proximal femur are significantly different across different populations.

Racial differentiation in the morphometric parameters of proximal femur across different populations have also been reported by De Sousa E et al20 in their study evaluating the variables with Auto CAD 2000 in Brazilian population. Baharuddin MY et al21 concuded that femur in Malaysian population were generally smaller and different than western femur in many morphological parameters. Umer et al.22 also reported that the morphology of proximal femur in standardized antero-posterior pelvic radiographs in Pakistani population differed significantly than that from western population. These studies highlight the racial variations in parameters of proximal femur.

According to Reddy et al,23 an implant mismatch, has been strongly correlated with increased risk of intra-operative fracture or limb lengthening as well as micro-motion leading to increased incidences of anterior thigh pain, improper load distribution, aseptic loosening as well as osteolysis. Implants and prosthesis designed for western population are larger in size as well as the angles and orientations are mismatch to other populations. It emphasizes the need to design these implants based on anthropometric and bio-mechanic data for a specific population thereby minimizing complications.

Since subdivisions of Indian population do not have specific implants designed for them, the observations of present study can be used to replicate the normal anatomy as far as possible. Improved knowledge of the morphometric parameters of proximal femur will not only aid surgeons during total hip arthroplasty but the data could also be used as a guideline to design appropriate fit implants for the population.

Since the study was done on dry cadavers it was not possible to ensure that right and left sided femurs belonged to a particular individual. Moreover, we did not observe significant difference in measurements for right and left sided femur, hence the data has been presented accordingly. We also did not categorise the data for gender, but it will be noteworthy to observe any significant difference there as well as observe the horizontal and vertical offset of the femurs for further understanding.

Conclusion

The findings revealed significant variations in the morphological parameters among populations, emphasizing the importance of considering racial diversity in the design and selection of implants for THA for improving the success and longevity of hip arthroplasty procedures in India.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1 

HC Amstutz Complications of total hip replacementClin Orthop Relat Res19707212337

2 

O Husmann PJ Rubin PF Leyvraz BD Roguin JN Argenson Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femurJ Arthroplasty199712444450

3 

CA Engh JD Bobyn AH Glassman Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical resultsJ Bone Joint Surg Br19876914555

4 

MK Nurzenski NK Briffa RI Price BC Khoo A Devine TJ Beck Geometric indices of bone strength are associated with physical activity and dietary calcium intake in healthy older womenJ Bone Miner Res200722341624

5 

MY El-Najjar KR Mcwilliams Forensic Anthropology: The structure, morphology and variations human bone and dentition Charles C Thomas Pub LtdUSA1977

6 

AK Jain AV Maheshwari MP Singh S Nath SK Bhargav Femoral neck anteversion: A comprehensive Indian studyIndian J Orthop20053913744

7 

RC Siwach S Dahiya Anthropometric Study of Proximal Femur Geometry and Its Clinical ApplicationIndian J Orthop200337424751

8 

ALM Mourao HA De-Vasconcellos Proximal femur geometry in Brazilian bonesActa Fisiátr2001831139

9 

BV Murlimanju LV Prabhu MM Pai BM Kumar KVN Dhananjaya KU Prashanth Osteometric study of the upper end of femur and its clinical applicationsEur J Orthop Surg Traumatol201222322730

10 

R Siwach Anthropometric Study of Proximal Femur Geometry and Its Clinical ApplicationAnn Natl Acad Med Sci201854420315

11 

S Dhivya V Nandhini A Study of Certain Femoral Metrics in South Indian Population and its Clinical ImportanceInt J Sci Study2015371325

12 

GO Ravi SH Saheb AR Joseph-N A Morphometric Study of Femur and Its Clinical ImportanceInt J Intg Med Sci2016373414

13 

S Gujar S Vikani J Parmar KV Bondre A Correlation between Femoral Neck Shaft Angle to Femoral Neck LengthInt J Biomed Adv Res2013452958

14 

SM Khan SH Saheb Study on neck shaft angle and femoral length of south indian femursInt J Anat Res2014246335

15 

TM Menezes Tds Rocha Bdr De-Oliveira Yml De-Albuquerque V Caiaffo Proximal femoral epiphysis: Manual morphometry versus digital morphometryInt J Morphol20153333311149

16 

T Zulan KA Murshid An analysis of Anatolian human femur anthropometryTurk J Med Sci2002322315

17 

A Unnanuntana P Toogood D Hart D Cooperman RE Grant Evaluation of proximal femur geometry using digital photographsJ Orthop Res201028111399404

18 

HJ Cho DS Kwak IB Kim Morphometric evaluation of Korean Femur by geometric computation: comparisons of the sex and the populationBiomed Res201510.1155/2015/730538

19 

PJ Rubin PF Leyuraz JM Aubaniac JN Argenson P Esteve Bd Roguin The morphology of the proximal femur. A three dimensional Radiographic analysisJ Bone Joint Surg[Br]19927412832

20 

E De-Sousa RMP Fernandes MB Mathias MR Rodrigues AJ Ambram MA Babinski Morphometric study of the proximal femur extremity in BraziliansInt J Morphol201028383540

21 

MY Baharuddin AH Zulkifly M His AA Aziz Three dimensional morphometry of the femur to design the total hip Arthroplasty for Malay PopulationAdv Sci Lett2013191029827

22 

M Umer A Sepah A Khan Morphology of the proximal femur in the Pakistan populationJ Orthop Surg20101827981

23 

VS Reddy GV Moorthy SG Reddy Do we need a special design of femoral component of total hip prosthesis in our patients?Indian J Orthop1999332824



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article History

Received : 09-01-2024

Accepted : 23-02-2024


View Article

PDF File   Full Text Article


Copyright permission

Get article permission for commercial use

Downlaod

PDF File   XML File   ePub File


Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Article DOI

https://doi.org/ 10.18231/j.ijcap.2024.005


Article Metrics






Article Access statistics

Viewed: 645

PDF Downloaded: 342