Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 117–124 | Cite as

Anatomical study based on 3D-CT image reconstruction of the hip rotation center and femoral offset in a Chinese population: preoperative implications in total hip arthroplasty

  • Lin-hong Yi
  • Rui Li
  • Zheng-ya Zhu
  • Chao-wen Bai
  • Jin-long Tang
  • Feng-chao Zhao
  • Xin ZhengEmail author
  • Kai-jin GuoEmail author
Original Article



Several anatomical studies regarding the value of hip rotation center (HRC) and femoral offset (FO) have been performed in Western populations. However, there are a few data on hip morphological values in the Chinese population based on CT scans. This study measured the values of the hip and pelvis, especially HRC and FO, in a Chinese population and compared them with the published values obtained from Western populations.

Patients and methods

One hundred patients (50 females and 50 males) were included in the present study, and 3D-CT reconstructions of the hip and pelvis were generated. The mean age was 51.4 ± 8.9 years and mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.5 ± 2.6 kg/m2. All the morphologic measurements were compared between genders and sides, and the relationships between different parameters were analyzed.


The mean FO values were 38.4 ± 4.7 mm and 35.6 ± 4.4 mm for the males and females, respectively. A significant negative correlation was noted between FO and neck shaft angle (NSA) in both genders (r = − 0.262, P = 0.009 for the males, r = − 0.350, P ≤ 0.001 for the females). A significant positive correlation was found between horizontal distance (HD) and diameter of the femoral head (DFH) in both genders (r = 0.734, P ≤ 0.001 for the males, r = 0.658, P ≤ 0.001 for the females). A significant positive correlation was noted between HD and pelvic width (PW) in males (r = 0.455, P ≤ 0.001). A significant positive correlation was also noted between HD and pelvic height (PH) in males (r = 0.318, P ≤ 0.001). A significant positive correlation was observed between FO and pelvic cavity height (PCH) in males (r = 0.411, P ≤ 0.001), and a significant positive correlation was observed between VD and PCH in females (r = 0.497, P ≤ 0.001). The tip of the greater trochanter was, on average, 7.0 mm higher than the femoral head center. Relationships between DFH and pelvic morphometric parameters were also observed.


The present morphological data and the relationships between them can be applied to design better ethnic-specific THA prostheses and preoperative plans.


Anatomy Pelvis Total hip arthroplasty Image reconstruction 



This work has received the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81672184), Key Program of Science and Technique Development Foundation in Jiangsu Province (BE2015627), Research Project of Jiangsu Provincial Health Department (H201528), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project (2016M591929, 2017T100408), and Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent (QNRC2016801).

Author contributions

KJG and XZ: protocol development. LHY, XZ, and RL: data collection. ZYZ, JLT, and CWB: data analysis. LHY and FCZ: manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Abel MF, Sutherland DH, Wenger DR et al (1994) Evaluation of CT scans and 3-D reformatted images for quantitative assessment of the hip. J Pediatr Orthop 14:48–53Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abolghasemian M, Samiezadeh S, Jafari D et al (2013) Displacement of the hip center of rotation after arthroplasty of Crowe III and IV dysplasia: a radiological and biomechanical study. J Arthroplasty 28:1031–1035Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asayama I, Chamnongkich S, Simpson KJ et al (2005) Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:414–420Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blum MA, Ibrahim SA (2012) Race/ethnicity and use of elective joint replacement in the management of end-stage knee/hip osteoarthritis: a review of the literature. Clin Geriatr Med 28:521–532Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassidy KA, Noticewala MS, Macaulay W et al (2012) Effect of femoral offset on pain and function after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1863–1869Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clement ND, Macdonald SP-PR D et al (2016) Total hip replacement: increasing femoral offset improves functional outcome. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:1317–1323Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conn KS, Clarke MT, Hallett JP (2002) A simple guide to determine the magnification of radiographs and to improve the accuracy of preoperative templating. J Bone Jt Surg Br 84:269–272Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Am 61:15–23Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Devane PA, Horne JG (1999) Assessment of polyethylene wear in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:59–72Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Innmann MM, Maier MW, Streit MR et al (2018) Additive influence of hip offset and leg length reconstruction on postoperative improvement in clinical outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:156–161Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Innmann MM, Spier K, Streit MR et al (2017) Comparative analysis of the reconstruction of individual hip anatomy using three different cementless stem designs in patients with primary hip osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 33:1126–1132Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ji HM, Won SH, Han J et al (2017) Does femoral offset recover and affect the functional outcome of patients with displaced femoral neck fracture following hemiarthroplasty? Injury 48:1170–1174Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kiyama T, Naito M, Shitama H et al (2009) Effect of superior placement of the hip center on abductor muscle strength in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:240–245Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krishnan SP, Carrington RWJ, Mohiyaddin S et al (2006) Common misconceptions of normal hip joint relations on pelvic radiographs. J Arthroplasty 21:409–412Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurtz WB, Ecker TM, Reichmann WM et al (2010) Factors affecting bony impingement in hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:624–634Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larson AN, Rabenhorst B, Rocha ADL et al (2012) Limited intraobserver and interobserver reliability for the common measures of hip joint congruency used in dysplasia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1414–1420Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lecerf G, Fessy MH, Philippot R et al (2009) Femoral offset: Anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:210–219Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liebs TR, Nasser L, Herzberg W et al (2014) The influence of femoral offset on health-related quality of life after total hip replacement. Bone Jt J 96-B(1):36–42Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Little NJ, Busch CA, Gallagher JA et al (2009) Acetabular polyethylene wear and acetabular inclination and femoral offset. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2895–2900Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ma H, Han Y, Yang Q et al (2014) Three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction measurements of acetabulum in Chinese adults. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 297:643–649Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maratt JD, Esposito CI, Mclawhorn AS et al (2015) Pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: when does it matter? J Arthroplasty 30:387–391Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mcgrory BJ, Morrey BF, Cahalan TD et al (1995) Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Br 77:865–869Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merle C, Waldstein W, Pegg E et al (2012) Femoral offset is underestimated on anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis but accurately assessed on anteroposterior radiographs of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94:477–482Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mikhail MB, Vaswani AN, Aloia JF (1996) Racial differences in femoral dimensions and their relation to hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 6:22–24Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mineta K, Goto T, Wada K et al (2016) CT-based morphological assessment of the hip joint in Japanese patients: association with radiographic predictors of femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Jt J 98-B:1167–1174Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ng VY, Kean JR, Glassman AH (2013) Limb-length discrepancy after hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:1426–1436Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ et al (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:148–165Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pasquier G, Ducharne G, Ali ES et al (2010) Total hip arthroplasty offset measurement: Is C T scan the most accurate option? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:367–375Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patel AB, Wagle RR, Usrey MM et al (2010) Guidelines for implant placement to minimize impingement during activities of daily living after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:1275–1281Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pierchon F, Migaud H, Duquennoy A et al (1993) Radiologic evaluation of the rotation center of the hip. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 79:281–284Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sakalkale DP, Sharkey PF, Eng K et al (2001) Effect of femoral component offset on polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:125–134Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G et al (2009) Three-dimensional hip anatomy in osteoarthritis. Analysis of the femoral offset. J Arthroplasty 24:990–997Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Takamatsu T, Shishido T, Takahashi Y et al (2015) Radiographic determination of hip rotation center and femoral offset in japanese adults: a preliminary investigation toward the preoperative implications in total hip arthroplasty. Biomed Res Int 2015:610763Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Varghese B, Muthukumar N, Balasubramaniam M et al (2011) Reliability of measurements with digital radiographs—a myth. Acta Orthop Belg 77:622–625Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Warden SJ, Hill KM, Ferira AJ et al (2013) Racial differences in cortical bone and their relationship to biochemical variables in Black and White children in the early stages of puberty. Osteoporos Int 24:1869–1879Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang Y, Jiang J, Wang C et al (2014) The ratio of femoral head diameter to pelvic height in the normal hips of a Chinese population. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:947–951Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang YY, Liu PY, Lu Y et al (2010) Race and sex differences and contribution of height: a study on bone size in healthy Caucasians and Chinese. Am J Hum Biol 17:568–575Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsThe Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical UniversityXuzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Medical ImagingThe Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical UniversityXuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations