Advertisement

Pflügers Archiv

, Volume 431, Supplement 6, pp R207–R208 | Cite as

Determination of the femoral and pelvic geometrical parameters that are important for the hip joint contact stress: Differences between female and male

  • B. Kersnič
  • A. Iglič
  • V. Kralj-Iglič
  • A. Jacklič
  • F. Srakar
  • F. Pernuš
  • V. Antolič
Article

Abstract

The difference between male and female femoral and pelvic geometry was studied by considering some geometrical parameters such as interhip distance, inclination of the crista iliaca, diameter of the femoral head and centre-edge angle of Wiberg. The values of these parameters were determined for 79 healthy female and 21 healthy male subjects. Standard anterior-posterior radiographs were used and processed by the computer-aided system. The results show some important sex differences in femoral and pelvic geometrical parameters which determine the hip joint contact stress.

Key words

hip joint pelvic shape pelvic parameters 

References

  1. 1.
    Hadley NA, Brown TD, Weinstein SL (1990) The effects of contact pressure elevations and aseptic necrosis on the long-term clinical outcome of congenital hip dislocation. J Orthop Res 8: 504–513.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iglič A, Kralj-Iglič V, Antolič V, Srakar F, Stanič U (1993) Effect of the periacetabular osteotomy on the stress on the human hip joint articular surface. IEEE Trans Rehab Eng 1: 207–212.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iglič A, Srakar F, Kralj-Iglič V; Antolič V (1994) The influence of pelvic shape on the stress distribution on the articular surface of the human hip joint. Zdrav Vest 63: 727–728.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iglič A, Srakar F, Antolič V. (1993) Influence of pelvic shape on biomechanical status of the hip. Clin Biomech 8:223–224.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaklič A Pemuš F (1994) Morphometric analysis of AP pelvic and hip radiographs. In : Zajc B; Solina F (eds.) Proceedings of the third Slovenian electrotehnical and computer science conference. Ljubljana, pp 352–355.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kummer H (1991) Die klinische Relevanz biomechanischer Analysen der Hüftregion. Z Orthop 129: 285–294.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Legal H (1987) Introduction to the biomechanics of the hip. In: Tönnis, Congenital Dysplasia and Dislocation of the hip, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sviridov A I (1983) Anatomija čeloveka. Golovnoe izd., Kiev, Višaškola, pp 64–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Kersnič
    • 1
  • A. Iglič
    • 2
    • 3
  • V. Kralj-Iglič
    • 3
  • A. Jacklič
    • 2
  • F. Srakar
    • 1
    • 4
  • F. Pernuš
    • 2
  • V. Antolič
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsMedical FacultyLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Faculty of Electrical and Computer EngineeringLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Medical FacultyInstitute of BiophysicsSlovenia
  4. 4.J. Stefan InstituteUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations