Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anatomy of the proximal femur at the time of total hip arthroplasty is a matter of morphotype and etiology but not gender

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 25 September 2014

Abstract

This study aimed to determine (1) whether: gender, morphotype, or etiology are correlated with the shape of the proximal femur in patients with advanced hip osteoarthritis and (2) is there any clinical predictive factors of potential abnormal anatomy of the hip at the time of total hip arthroplasty (THA)? We reviewed 689 European hips of patients who underwent THA for primary osteoarthritis (OA) or avascular necrosis (AVN), between 2000 and 2005. The patients were stratified according to their (1) Morphotype, (2) Gender, and (3) Etiology for undergoing THA. Two independent observers measured the following four anatomical parameters on preoperative CT-scans: neck shaft angle (NSA) and femoral neck version, femoral offset and lower-limb torsion. Our results showed that both morphotype and etiology, but not gender or body mass index, were correlated with femoral anatomical parameters. Two types of patients were identified as “at risk” for abnormal hip anatomy: (1) AVN-Endomorphic patients (2) OA-Ectomorphic patients. Etiology of the advanced hip osteoarthritis and patients’ morphotype may predict the proximal femur anatomy at the time of THA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Archibeck MJ, Cummins T, Carothers J, Junick DW, White RE Jr (2011) A comparison of two implant systems in restoration of hip geometry in arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:443–446

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Argenson JN, Ryembault E, Flecher X, Brassart N, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM (2005) Three-dimensional anatomy of the hip in osteoarthritis after developmental dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1192–1196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson HD, Johal KS, Willis-Owen C, Zadow S, Oakeshott RD (2010) Differences in hip morphology between the sexes in patients undergoing hip resurfacing. J Orthop Surg Res 15(5):76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Battista RA, Pivarnik JM, Dummer GM, Sauer N, Malina RM (2007) Comparison of physical characteristics and performances among female college rowers. J Sport Sci 25:651–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellemans J, Carpentier K, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J, Victor J (2010) The John insall award both morphotype and gender influence the shape of the knee in patients undergoing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:29–36

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346:1085–1087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2002) Soft tissue balancing: the hip. J Arthroplasty 17:17–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bulbulian R (1984) The influence of somatotype on anthropometric prediction of body composition in young women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 16:389–397

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Duparc F, Thomine JM, Simonet J et al. (2014) Femoral and tibial bone torsions associated with medial femoro-tibial osteoarthritis. Index of cumulative torsions [In Process Citation] Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(1):69–74

  10. Heath BH, Carter JE (1967) A modified somatotype method. Am J Phys Anthropol 27:57–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hermann KL, Egund N (1997) CT measurement of anteversion in the femoral neck. The influence of femur positioning. Acta Radiol 38:527–532

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huppertz A, Radmer S, Asbach P, Juran R, Schwenke C, Diederichs G, Hamm B, Sparmann M (2011) Computed tomography for preoperative planning in minimal-invasive total hip arthroplasty: radiation exposure and cost analysis. Eur J Radiol 78:406–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, De Roguin B, Argenson JN (1997) Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 12:444–450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson AJ, Costa CR, Mont MA (2011) Do we need gender-specific total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1852–1858

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lavy CB, Msamati BC, Igbigbi PS (2003) Racial and gender variations in adult hip morphology. Int Orthop 27:331–333

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 370:1508–1519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mall G, Graw M, Gehring K, Hubig M (2000) Determination of sex from femora. Forensic Sci Int 113:315–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Massin P, Geais L, Astoin E, Simondi M, Lavaste F (2000) The anatomic basis for the concept of lateralized femoral stems: a frontal plane radiographic study of the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty 15:93–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matsushita A, Nakashima Y, Fujii M, Sato T, Iwamoto Y (2010) Modular necks improve the range of hip motion in cases with excessively anteverted or retroverted femurs in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3342–3347

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nieves JW, Formica C, Ruffing J, Zion M, Garrett P, Lindsay R, Cosman F (2005) Males have larger skeletal size and bone mass than females, despite comparable body size. J Bone Miner Res 20:529–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:148–165

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ollivier M, Parratte S, Lecoz L, Flecher X, Argenson JN (2013) Relation between lower extremity alignment and proximal femur anatomy; parameters during total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(5):493–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pauwels F (1975) A clinical observation as example and proof of functional adaptation of bone through longitudinal growth. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 113:1–5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G, Durante E (2009) Three-dimensional hip anatomy in osteoarthritis analysis of the femoral offset. J Arthroplasty 24:990–997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheldon WH (1950) The somatotype, the morphophenotype, and the morphogenotype. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 15:373–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Slaughter MH, Lohman TG (1976) Relationship of body composition to somatotype. Am J Phys Anthropol 44:237–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Traina F, De Clerico M, Biondi F, Pilla F, Tassinari E, Toni A (2009) Sex differences in hip morphology: is stem modularity effective for total hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:121–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Upadhyay SS, Burwell RG, Moulton A, Small PG, Wallace WA (1990) Femoral anteversion in healthy children. Application of a new method using ultrasound. J Anat 169:49–61

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Viste A, Trouillet F, Testa R et al (2014) An evaluation of CT-scan to locate the femoral head centre and its implication for hip surgeons. Surg Radiol Anat 36(3):259–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yates LB, Karasik D, Beck TJ, Cupples LA, Kiel DP (2007) Hip structural geometry in old and old-old age: similarities and differences between men and women. Bone 41:722–732

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, ISM UMR 7287, 13284, Marseille, France

    Matthieu Ollivier, Sebastien Parratte, Thomas Lecorroller, Andrea Reggiori, Pierre Champsaur & Jean-Noël Argenson

  2. Orthopedic Surgery Department, APHM, Hôpital Sainte Marguerite, Institute for Locomotion, 13009, Marseille, France

    Matthieu Ollivier, Sebastien Parratte, Andrea Reggiori & Jean-Noël Argenson

  3. Radiology Department, APHM, Hôpital Sainte Marguerite, Institute for Locomotion, 13009, Marseille, France

    Thomas Lecorroller & Pierre Champsaur

  4. Laboratoire d’anatomie de La Faculté de Médecine de Marseille, 13005, Marseille, France

    Matthieu Ollivier, Thomas Lecorroller & Pierre Champsaur

  5. Institut du mouvement et de l’appareil locomoteur, Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Hôpital Sainte-Marguerite, 270, Boulevard Sainte-Marguerite, BP 29-13274, Marseille Cedex 09, France

    Matthieu Ollivier

Authors
  1. Matthieu Ollivier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastien Parratte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Lecorroller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea Reggiori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pierre Champsaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jean-Noël Argenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthieu Ollivier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ollivier, M., Parratte, S., Lecorroller, T. et al. Anatomy of the proximal femur at the time of total hip arthroplasty is a matter of morphotype and etiology but not gender. Surg Radiol Anat 37, 377–384 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-014-1368-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-014-1368-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation